| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small docs bugfix: make it clear what can be used in UPDATE FROM and DELETE USING |
| Date: | 2020-03-18 16:24:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20200318162445.GG17915@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:58:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I have implemented the ideas above in the attached patch. I have
> > synchronized the syntax to match SELECT, and synchronized the paragraphs
> > describing the item.
>
> I think that the DELETE synopsis should look like
>
> [ USING <replaceable class="parameter">from_item</replaceable> [, ...] ]
>
> so that there's not any question which part of the SELECT syntax we're
> talking about. I also think that the running text in both cases should
> say in exactly these words "from_item means the same thing as it does
> in SELECT"; the wording you propose still seems to be dancing around
> the point, leaving readers perhaps not quite sure about what is meant.
>
> In the DELETE case you could alternatively say "using_item means the same
> thing as from_item does in SELECT", but that doesn't really seem like an
> improvement to me.
OK, updated patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| from.diff | text/x-diff | 5.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-18 16:30:39 | Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze) |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-03-18 16:22:00 | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting for pg_basebackup, in the server side |