On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:59:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Aug-22, Tom Lane wrote: > > > If you don't want to go all the way and list the operators with their > > input types, maybe we should just do what the OP thought was correct > > and delete the duplicate operator names. It's already the case that > > the table isn't telling you exactly which input types the operators > > accept, so why not be a little bit fuzzier? > > Well, if we're going to have a table, let's have a useful table. What's > wrong with using the same contents \dAo shows? It seemed reasonable > enough to me.
I don't think it is worth it, plus we would need to adjust the docs if system catalog layout changes. I think we just want something concise and simple, but also accurate. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
