Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:59:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Aug-22, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > If you don't want to go all the way and list the operators with their
> > input types, maybe we should just do what the OP thought was correct
> > and delete the duplicate operator names.  It's already the case that
> > the table isn't telling you exactly which input types the operators
> > accept, so why not be a little bit fuzzier?
> 
> Well, if we're going to have a table, let's have a useful table.  What's
> wrong with using the same contents \dAo shows? It seemed reasonable
> enough to me.

I don't think it is worth it, plus we would need to adjust the docs if
system catalog layout changes.  I think we just want something concise
and simple, but also accurate.

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

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