Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought about this a bit more last night.  It's certainly true that
>> a lot of "internal" functions have comments that don't suggest that
>> they're not meant to be used directly.  What I think would be a good
>> plan for functions that underlie operators is that we move any useful
>> comments from pg_proc to pg_operator, and then install a comment in
>> pg_proc that says "implementation of operator +" (or whatever the
>> operator name is).
>> ...
>> If that sounds like a reasonable plan, I'm willing to have a go at it
>> after the commitfest closes.

> Tom, any work on this?  A TODO?

I haven't done anything about this yet, but it's still on my to-do list.
Right now (or at least after I finish the patches I'm working on) would
probably be about the best possible time to do it, since hopefully we
have the minimum number of unapplied patches that would need to be
revised to follow the new convention.

            regards, tom lane