Re: Mark deprecated operators as such in their comments?

I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> "Deprecated, use <blah> instead"?

Everybody seems happy with that part of the proposal, so I'll make it
happen.

>> I think the chances that future patches will follow the more complex
>> coding rule are near zero, absent some type of automated enforcement
>> mechanism.

> Well, there is an enforcement mechanism: the regression tests will now
> complain if any pg_proc.h entry lacks a comment. What they can't do
> very well is enforce that the comment is sanely chosen. In particular
> the likely failure mechanism is that someone submits a custom comment
> for a function that would be better off being labeled as "implementation
> of XXX operator". But AFAICS such a mistake is about equally likely
> with either approach, maybe even a tad more so if submitters are forced
> to comment every function instead of having an automatic default.

After further reflection I think that it should be marginally less
error-prone to provide the default comment mechanism. So unless someone
feels more strongly against it than they've indicated so far, I'll go
ahead and do that.

regards, tom lane