Re: obsolete indexing method "rtree"

On Fri, Aug  7, 2020 at 05:46:45PM +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> 
> On 06.08.20 10:12, David G. Johnston wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:18 AM Jürgen Purtz <juergen@purtz.de> wrote:
> 
> 
>         > Why?
> 
>         Because it can hinder the learning process.
> 
> 
>     FWIW I'd at least fixup comment.sgml to reference a current type.  And
>     while in there might as well add missing examples for the following since
>     we seem to have a goal of providing one example for every syntax (operators
>     get two in order to show NONE, rightarg).
> 
>       EVENT TRIGGER object_name |
>       PUBLICATION object_name |
>       SUBSCRIPTION object_name |
>       ROUTINE routine_name [ ( [ [ argmode ] [ argname ] argtype [, ...] ] ) ]
>     |  
> 
>     Such a "make current" patch that covers this complaint seems reasonable;
>     IOW, why not if you are in there anyway - rtree has some baggage and no
>     particular merit such that a different label would be worse.
> 
>     I don't see the value of removing the backward compatibility hack if it's
>     not bothering the developers.  Whether the documentation should be changed
>     to basically only cover this and nothing more I cannot say without studying
>     said documentation.  I agree with the general motive though.
> 
>     David J.
> 
> 
> Patch with four additional comments and one modified comment attached.

Thanks, patch applied through 11.  We added ROUTINE/PROCEDURE in PG 11,
so I decided not to cherry pick items to be applied prior to that
release.  Thanks.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee