Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

> On Aug 30, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: >> [ v3-0001-Adding-deprecation-notices.patch ] > > Pushed with some fiddling. Thanks! — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

Mark Dilger writes: > [ v3-0001-Adding-deprecation-notices.patch ] Pushed with some fiddling. We previously found that adding id tags to constructs in the function lists didn't work in PDF output [1]. Your patch did build a PDF without warnings for me, which is odd --- apparently we changed so

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: >> So, in this version, there are six copies of the deprecation notice >> John wrote, rather than just one. Maybe we need more than one, but I >> doubt we need six. I don't think the CREATE OPERATOR documentation >> needs t

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, I agree that there are way too many copies here. CREATE OPERATOR > seems sufficient. It also seems like we should just rewrite the typeconv > and drop_operator examples to use some other operator. We'll have > to do that eventually anyway

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

Robert Haas writes: > So, in this version, there are six copies of the deprecation notice > John wrote, rather than just one. Maybe we need more than one, but I > doubt we need six. I don't think the CREATE OPERATOR documentation > needs to mention this both when first introducing the concept and

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:07 PM Mark Dilger wrote: > Yes, that is better. Attached. So, in this version, there are six copies of the deprecation notice John wrote, rather than just one. Maybe we need more than one, but I doubt we need six. I don't think the CREATE OPERATOR documentation needs to

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

Hi Mark, -{ oid => '111', +{ oid => '111', descr => 'factorial', I see that opr_sanity fails without something here. We explicitly don't have descriptions of functions that implement deprecated operators (see setup_description() in initdb.c), but in all other cases, there are also supported opera

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

> On Aug 27, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: >> The deprecation warnings included in this patch warn that postfix operator >> support, along with both postfix ! and prefix !! factorial operators, will >> be removed in PostgreSQL 14. > > The operator docs should say

Re: Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

Mark Dilger writes: > The deprecation warnings included in this patch warn that postfix operator > support, along with both postfix ! and prefix !! factorial operators, will be > removed in PostgreSQL 14. The operator docs should say "use factorial() instead", or words to that effect.

Deprecating postfix and factorial operators in PostgreSQL 13

Hackers, Over in [1] we have been discussing the deprecation of postfix operators, with the general consensus that deprecation warnings should be included in this upcoming release and postfix operator support should be removed in PostgreSQL 14. Since not all people who follow -hackers will nec