Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:59:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Aug-22, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > If you don't want to go all the way and list the operators with their
> > input types, maybe we should just do what the OP thought was correct
> > and delete the duplicate operator names. It's already the case that
> > the table isn't telling you exactly which input types the operators
> > accept, so why not be a little bit fuzzier?
>
> Well, if we're going to have a table, let's have a useful table. What's
> wrong with using the same contents \dAo shows? It seemed reasonable
> enough to me.

I don't think it is worth it, plus we would need to adjust the docs if
system catalog layout changes. I think we just want something concise
and simple, but also accurate.

--
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