On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 11:38, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > You bring up an excellent point, which is that our builtin functions > could use a lot more documentation directly to hand than they now > have. For example, there's a lot of needless ambiguity created by > function comments which leave it up in the air as to which positional > argument does what in functions like string_to_array, which take > multiple arguments. I'll try to get a patch in for the next CF with a > fix for that, and a separate one that doesn't put it on people to use > \df+ to find the comments we do provide. There have been proposals for > including an optional space for COMMENT ON in DDL, but I suspect that > those won't fly unless and until they make their way into the > standard. >
Since you mention \df+, I wonder if this is the time to consider removing the source code from \df+ (since we have \sf) and adding in the proacl instead?
