Re: obsolete indexing method "rtree"

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 05:46:45PM +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
>
> 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> 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.

Thanks, patch applied through 11. We added ROUTINE/PROCEDURE in PG 11,
so I decided not to cherry pick items to be applied prior to that
release. Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee