Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If we were to go with this, I'd be strongly tempted to rearrange all
>> four of the messages involved to put the operator or function name
>> at the end, eg
>>
>> function 1 (oidvector[], oidvector[]) of operator family array_ops for
>> access method gin: btoidvectorcmp(oidvector,oidvector)
> I kind of wonder if it wouldn't be even better to just *delete* that
> from the thing altogether and write:
> function 1 (oidvector[], oidvector[]) of operator family array_ops for
> access method gin
> We're trying to represent the pg_amproc entry here, and including a
> bunch of details of the pg_proc entry to which it happens to point
> seems almost better to be confusing the issue.
Yeah, that occurred to me too. However, the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
syntax doesn't really draw a distinction between the referenced
function/operator and its reference in the opclass, and I'm not sure
users do either. So I don't want to give up the details of the function
or operator. But sticking them at the end after a colon might make it
clearer that the func/operator is referenced by the amproc or amop
entry, but is not the same thing.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
