Re: autogenerating headers & bki stuff

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we need to try to get *all* of the operator
>> classes out of the hand-maintained-DATA-entries collection.

> Is this mostly a forward-reference problem?

No, I don't see that as particularly the issue. What I'm concerned
about is the prospect of different parts of the same opfamily being
represented in different notations --- that sounds pretty error-prone
to me. Greg is arguing that special-casing some minimum subset of the
opclasses is a good idea, but I disagree. I think if we can make the
idea work at all, we can migrate *all* the built-in opclasses into the
higher-level notation, and that's how I want to approach it.

regards, tom lane