| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | aazamrafeeque0(at)gmail(dot)com, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect Syntax in Function Syntax diagram |
| Date: | 2021-06-23 15:29:11 |
| Message-ID: | 2225085.1624462151@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:31 AM PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
> Please separate the [ NOT ] LEAKPROOF from the OR list
> I would agree, and would add that I wonder whether the syntax for the three
> mutually exclusive options should be shown as such instead of having to
> read that in the description notes. Does writing < | { IMMUTABLE | STABLE
> | VOLATILE } > work?
Yeah. The way it's written fails to show, except via formatting,
that IMMUTABLE/STABLE/VOLATILE are mutually exclusive; and then
somebody came along and destroyed the formatting. I agree both
with adding braces and with putting LEAKPROOF on its own line.
The latter is/should be only cosmetic; but the rest of the list
has one line per independent option, and LEAKPROOF is surely
independent of the volatility options.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-06-23 15:41:56 | Re: Incorrect Syntax in Function Syntax diagram |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-06-23 15:16:49 | Re: Incorrect Syntax in Function Syntax diagram |