| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ville(at)torhonen(dot)fi" <ville(at)torhonen(dot)fi>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 00:23:11 |
| Message-ID: | 57351E6F.7030808@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 05/12/2016 05:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I am not sure that it is worth complicating the docs for the British
>> spelling of this word.
>
> I agree. If someone were to hold my feet to the fire about that,
> I'd vote for taking out the ANALYSE spelling rather than documenting
> it. But I'd rather leave it alone, since no doubt some of the British
> contingent are used to being able to spell it that way, even if the
> docs don't say that they can.
I was involved in a project whereby the client had written an app to
filter/control what could be executed by their developers (via a web
interface), and since ANALYSE was undocumented they missed it. I was
aware of it and pointed it out during an audit of their app.
Personally I would vote to either document it or rip it out, but I don't
think the status quo is good.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-05-13 01:49:18 | Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-13 00:15:17 | Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented |