Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 9/18/20 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, that's not a postfix operator ... oh, it's because it depends on the
>> numeric_fac function alias which we also removed. We could eliminate
>> the need to drop it if we changed the definition to use "factorial"
>> instead of "numeric_fac" in all the back branches. Not sure if that's
>> a better solution or not. Might be worth doing, because in the older
>> branches that's the only user-defined prefix operator, so we're missing
>> some pg_upgrade test coverage if we just drop it.
> Yeah, probably worth doing. It's a small enough change and it's only in
> the test suite.
OK, I'll go take care of that in a bit.
regards, tom lane
