From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: multiple action rules |
Date: | 2005-06-23 01:18:42 |
Message-ID: | 1119489522.8208.38.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 19:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> >> So, what's the magic pixie dust I need to sprinkle on this to make it
> >> work?
>
> > Never mind, I finally figured it out... About three minutes after
> > posting this. sheesh.
>
> If you think the docs are insufficiently clear, feel free to send in a
> documentation patch. Sometimes what seems obvious to the writer is less
> so to readers ...
Well, what really gets me is that basically, the syntax diagram in
the psql environment has a syntax diagram that makes sense to me.
So I guess if there was a "patch" it would basically reference the syntax
rules given by psql \h create rule in the documentation.
But that makes me think that the syntax diagrams should probably be
abstracted out of the pure sgml realm, and grabbed by both psql and the
docs during build time.
OK, took a break and looked through the developer docs, and, yet again,
someone has done the exact thing I would have done, they've put the same
basic syntax diagram as "\h create rule" in the docs...
So, thanks again...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julian Legeny | 2005-06-23 01:23:44 | Re: PROBLEM: Function does not exist |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-23 00:49:44 | Re: multiple action rules |