From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] |
Date: | 2006-08-03 15:56:20 |
Message-ID: | 429A0065-78C7-48C9-B2DC-E898988F93E6@seespotcode.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Aug 3, 2006, at 23:58 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Should we give VALUES its own reference page? That doesn't quite
> seem helpful either.
>
I think we should go for a separate reference page, as VALUES appears
to be expanding quite a bit. Up till now I've thought of VALUES only
in conjunction with UPDATE, so perhaps a useful alternative would be
to keep all of the information regarding VALUES and its syntax would
be as a large part of the UPDATE reference page, though that would
imply by placement (even if explained otherwise) that VALUES is only
a part of the UPDATE syntax, which it no longer (?) is. That brings
me back to the idea of VALUES deserving its own reference page.
I wonder how soon pretty much the entire SQL spec will be duplicated
in the PostgreSQL documentation. :)
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-03 17:11:47 | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 14:58:10 | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wade Klaver | 2006-08-03 16:03:09 | unsubscribe |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 15:39:05 | Re: pg_terminate_backend |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 16:05:23 | Re: tg_trigtuple/tg_newtuple settings in AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 15:22:58 | Re: GIN vs. statistics collector |