From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bogus documentation for bogus geometric operators |
Date: | 2020-11-13 08:26:53 |
Message-ID: | CALT9ZEELPyV6yMbLV-c-B8z2MAJTEkW4f-qxxVUKnAZCoaz1bw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> 1. The patch removes <^ and >^ from func.sgml, which is fine, but
shouldn't there be an addition for the new operators? (I think
>
I fully agree and added "point" as a possible input type for <<| and |>> in
manual. PFA v5
> undocumented. Maybe instead of removing, change the text to be
> "Deprecated, use the equivalent XXX operator instead." Or we could
> add a footnote similar to what was there for a previous renaming:
>
The problem that this new <<| is equivalent to <^ only for points (To
recap: the source of a problem is the same name of <^ operator for points
and boxes with different meaning for these types).
point
box
<<| |>> strictly above/below (new)
strictly above/below
<^ >^ strictly above/below (deprecated, but available)
above/below
So it seems to me that trying to mention the subtle difference of
deprecated operator to same-named one for different data type inevitably
make things much worse for reader. On this reason I'd vote for complete
nuking <^ for point type (but this is not the only way so I haven't done
this in v5).
What do you think?
--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v5-0001-Deprecate-and-replace-and-operators-for-points.patch | application/octet-stream | 26.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-11-13 08:56:12 | Re: Parallel copy |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-11-13 08:23:12 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |