Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, scott(dot)ure(at)caseware(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing
Date: 2018-04-02 20:41:59
Message-ID: 20180402204159.GA30362@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:51:50AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/30/18 10:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:56:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> >> 2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
> >>> From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
> >>> in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
> >>> however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
> >>>
> >> It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
> >> documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
> >> Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
> >> patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
> >> item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.
> >>
> >
> > Patch applied and backpatched to Postgres 10. Thank.s
>
> Per the nearby discussion, this should probably also be backpatched further.

OK, backpatched through 9.3.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2018-04-03 00:05:21 Re: Synopsis of SELECT statement: UNION, INTERSECTION, EXCEPT
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-04-02 15:59:24 Re: Blanks in the first line before the first word in the code boxes