Re: Mark deprecated operators as such in their comments?

I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> "Deprecated, use <blah> instead"?

Everybody seems happy with that part of the proposal, so I'll make it
happen.

>> I think the chances that future patches will follow the more complex
>> coding rule are near zero, absent some type of automated enforcement
>> mechanism.

> Well, there is an enforcement mechanism: the regression tests will now
> complain if any pg_proc.h entry lacks a comment.  What they can't do
> very well is enforce that the comment is sanely chosen.  In particular
> the likely failure mechanism is that someone submits a custom comment
> for a function that would be better off being labeled as "implementation
> of XXX operator".  But AFAICS such a mistake is about equally likely
> with either approach, maybe even a tad more so if submitters are forced
> to comment every function instead of having an automatic default.

After further reflection I think that it should be marginally less
error-prone to provide the default comment mechanism.  So unless someone
feels more strongly against it than they've indicated so far, I'll go
ahead and do that.
        regards, tom lane