On Mar 20, 2024, at 17:23, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Pushed with some editorialization. Mostly, I whacked the > documentation around pretty heavily: we have a convention for what > examples in function descriptions should look like, and this wasn't > it. Not entirely your fault, since some nearby entries in that > table hadn't gotten the word either.
Ah, great, and your wording on the parser error issue is much better, thank you! Best, David
