From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: emre@hasegeli.com
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators
In-reply-to: 
 <CAE2gYzzarxVpCs_EGmsos5qdxbW77i+4B14kz9ZH7YtF7BWU=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <24348.1587444160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAE2gYzzarxVpCs_EGmsos5qdxbW77i+4B14kz9ZH7YtF7BWU=w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>
	message dated "Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:33:53 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <12250.1588095204.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:33:24 -0400
Message-ID: <12251.1588095204@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com> writes:
>> Perhaps it's too late in the v13 cycle to actually do anything
>> about this code-wise, but what should I do documentation-wise?
>> I'm certainly not eager to document that these operators behave
>> inconsistently depending on which type you're talking about.

> I don't think we need to worry too much about doing something in the
> v13 cycle.  The geometric operators had and evidently still have so
> many bugs.  Nobody complains about them other than the developers who
> read the code.

Yeah, I ended up just documenting the current state of affairs.

> I am happy to prepare a patch for the next release to fix the current
> operators and add the missing ones.

Sounds great!

			regards, tom lane