• Tom Lane's avatar
    Mark operator implementation functions as such in their comments. · 94133a93
    Tom Lane authored
    Historically, we've not had separate comments for built-in pg_operator
    entries, but relied on the comments for the underlying functions.  The
    trouble with this approach is that there isn't much of anything to suggest
    to users that they'd be better off using the operators instead.  So, move
    all the relevant comments into pg_operator, and give each underlying
    function a comment that just says "implementation of XXX operator".
    There are only about half a dozen cases where it seems reasonable to use
    the underlying function interchangeably with the operator; in these cases
    I left the same comment in place on the function as on the operator.
    
    While at it, establish a policy that every built-in function and operator
    entry should have a comment: there are now queries in the opr_sanity
    regression test that will complain if one doesn't.  This only required
    adding a dozen or two more entries than would have been there anyway.
    
    I also spent some time trying to eliminate gratuitous inconsistencies in
    the style of the comments, though it's hopeless to suppose that more won't
    creep in soon enough.
    
    Per my proposal of 2010-10-15.
    94133a93
opr_sanity.out 49.3 KB