On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > And yet ... and yet ... if you adopt the position that what we're going > to print is "amproc item: referenced procedure", then it's not entirely > clear why the amproc item description shouldn't be complete. The > argument that it's redundant with the procedure description gets a lot > weaker as soon as you look at them as two separate items. Ditto amop. > And having to add a lot of otherwise-useless code to suppress the > redundancy surely isn't very attractive.
I couldn't agree more. Sorry if I didn't explain that concern clearly enough upthread. > So I guess I'm coming around to the idea that we want something not too > much bigger than Andreas' original patch, but applying to both amop and > amproc, and putting the operator/function description at the end. That's fine with me. I think the principal argument for failing to remove it entirely is that we've traditionally had it there, but IMHO moving in the direction of treating them as separate objects is much more clear and an altogether better approach. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
