Re: obsolete indexing method "rtree"

On 06.08.20 10:12, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:18 AM Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de
> <mailto:juergen(at)purtz(dot)de>> wrote:
>
>
> > Why?
>
> Because it can hinder the learning process.
>
>
> FWIW I'd at least fixup comment.sgml to reference a current type.  And
> while in there might as well add missing examples for the following
> since we seem to have a goal of providing one example for every syntax
> (operators get two in order to show NONE, rightarg).
>
>   EVENT TRIGGER object_name |
>   PUBLICATION object_name |
>   SUBSCRIPTION object_name |
>   ROUTINE routine_name [ ( [ [ argmode ] [ argname ] argtype [, ...] ]
> ) ] |
>
> Such a "make current" patch that covers this complaint seems
> reasonable; IOW, why not if you are in there anyway - rtree has some
> baggage and no particular merit such that a different label would be
> worse.
>
> I don't see the value of removing the backward compatibility hack if
> it's not bothering the developers.  Whether the documentation should
> be changed to basically only cover this and nothing more I cannot say
> without studying said documentation.  I agree with the general motive
> though.
>
> David J.
>
Patch with four additional comments and one modified comment attached.

--

Jürgen Purtz