Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > Yeah, I kind of like the table myself too, because this topic is already > so complicated.
Agreed. I'm not very happy with the suggestion of "(multiple)" though; I think that will just add confusion. 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? regards, tom lane