Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> How about?:
>> 4. do 1+3, i.e. flip the GIN operators to keep core consistency, but
>> deprecate the operators for both contrib and core. Something more
>> visually like set ops would be ideal.
>>
>
> If we're going to adopt new preferred names, I see no reason to support
> the old confusing names for operators that have never existed before
> 8.2. There is no backward-compatibility argument to be made there.
>
>
>
You're right. I misread your original proposal. I vote for #3.
cheers
andrew