From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Possible typo in create_policy.sgml |
Date: | 2015-01-29 04:00:33 |
Message-ID: | 20150129040033.GM3854@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > If I'm following correctly, Peter's specifically talking about:
> >
> > [ USING ( <replaceable class="parameter">expression</replaceable> ) ]
> > [ WITH CHECK ( <replaceable class="parameter">check_expression</replaceable> ) ]
> >
> > Where the USING parameter is 'expression' but the WITH CHECK parameter
> > is 'check_expression'. He makes a good point, I believe, as
> > "expression" is overly generic. I don't like the idea of using
> > "barrier_expression" though as that ends up introducing a new term- how
> > about "using_expression"?
>
> Oh. Well, I guess we could change that. I don't think it's a
> problem, myself. I thought he was talking about something in the SGML
> markup.
I agree that it's not a big deal, but I agree with Peter that it's
worthwhile to clarify, especially since this will be seen in psql's \h
w/o the rest of the context of the CREATE POLICY documentation.
I've gone ahead and made this minor change.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-29 04:22:20 | Re: Possible typo in create_policy.sgml |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-29 03:47:31 | Re: Small bug on CREATE EXTENSION pgq... |