I know we left this issue open, but I came to the conclusion that it would
be wiser to keep it like it used to be in that operator comments should be
indexed on the underlying functions. The reason is simply that there is a
a one-to-one relationship between operators and their function, so we'd
end up writing everything double with little purpose. That would mean
you'd have to tweak your code a little.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:11:02 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
descriptions on operators
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> I know we left this issue open, but I came to the conclusion that it would
> be wiser to keep it like it used to be in that operator comments should be
> indexed on the underlying functions. The reason is simply that there is a
> a one-to-one relationship between operators and their function, so we'd
> end up writing everything double with little purpose. That would mean
> you'd have to tweak your code a little.
> 

If that's the way you want it, so it shall be. I have to write up
a diff for pg_dump this weekend anyways to generate the
appropriate COMMENT ON statements for version 7.0.

Mike Mascari

Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:31:17 -0500
Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
Re: [HACKERS] descriptions on operators