Re: Naming of network_ops vs. inet_ops for SP-GIST

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: greenreaper(at)hotmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Naming of network_ops vs. inet_ops for SP-GIST
Date: 2023-01-25 03:38:28
Message-ID: 2581959.1674617908@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> I don't have a strong opinion about the naming inconsistency between
> the opclass name and the opfamily name in this case, though, couldn't
> it create more problems than actually fix something?

Well, it's been like that from day one and people haven't complained.
I think changing it now would add more confusion than it subtracts.

> Anyway, attached is a patch for the docs. Thoughts?

Works for me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Doc comments form 2023-01-25 08:22:15 Not an error but a difficult wording
Previous Message Martin L. Buchanan 2023-01-25 03:05:41 log_temp_files one minor clarification