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
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 |