| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 02:45:22 |
| Message-ID: | Y9CXwpxK/1j1a7vD@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:22:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder whether we shouldn't just revert this table to
> showing opclass names, and avert our eyes from the theoretical
> inconsistency. Michael, looks like it was your 7a1cd5260
> that changed it; what do you think?
Yes, the docs should be fixed here. The intention is not to show the
operator families but the names of the opclasses. I can only spot one
difference in SpGiST for network_ops -> inet_ops as of the report.
BRIN, GIN and GiST look to be clean after a second lookup.
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?
Anyway, attached is a patch for the docs. Thoughts?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| spgist-builtin.patch | text/x-diff | 2.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin L. Buchanan | 2023-01-25 03:05:41 | log_temp_files one minor clarification |
| Previous Message | Laurence Parry | 2023-01-24 21:34:32 | Re: Naming of network_ops vs. inet_ops for SP-GIST |