From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nikolay Shaplov <n(dot)shaplov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet |
Date: | 2016-05-31 20:13:59 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYJptm-QTcCB6V1Dunpa=BAnK06MJq97mbqpMFa8hx+Og@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Nikolay Shaplov <n(dot)shaplov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:
> В письме от 31 мая 2016 15:38:38 пользователь Robert Haas написал:
>
> > >>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for
> the
> > >>> reasons I mentioned before.
> > >>
> > >> I tend to agree with Nikolay. I can't see much upside in making this
> > >> change. At best, nothing will break. At worst, something will break.
> > >> But how do we actually come out ahead?
> > >
> > > We come out ahead by not having to make the documentation more
> confusing.
> > >
> > > Basically, we have the opportunity to fix an ancient mistake here at
> > > very low cost. I do not think that doubling down on the mistake is
> > > a better answer.
> >
> > I'm not convinced, but we don't have to agree on everything...
> I am not convinced too. But I will not argue hard for the patch as far as
> my
> main goal was to report inconsistency. Through the I consider Tom's
> proposal
> quite strange...
>
>
We've recently chosen to not document the "ANALYZE -> ANALYSE" syntax, and
I'm sure there are other examples, so I don't see why the status quo
(pre-Tom's patch) is unacceptable...if adding USING to the synopsis is
prone to cause confusion then don't; but lets not break existing uses that
in no way harm the project.
Otherwise I presume Tom is correct that the true fix is more than a single
word in one file of our documentation. If you want to see it stay and be
documented there needs to be a complete proposal that at least gets, even
if grudging, approval from a couple of people and a committer.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-31 20:27:42 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-31 20:12:42 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |