Re: new json funcs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: new json funcs
Date: 2014-01-10 19:31:31
Message-ID: 15348.1389382291@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Oh, I see. That's fine with me. From the source code it's hard to see
> when a SQL-callable function is only there to implement an operator,
> though (and it seems a bit far-fetched to suppose that the developer
> will think, upon seeing an undocumented function, "oh this must
> implement some operator, I will look it up at pg_proc.h").

> I think the operator(s) should be mentioned in the comment on top of the
> function.

Oh, you're complaining about the lack of any header comment for the
function in the source code. That's a different matter from the
user-visible docs, but I agree that it's poor practice to not have
anything.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-01-10 19:39:12 Re: new json funcs
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-01-10 19:28:58 Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE