From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE .. LIKE .. EXCLUDING documentation |
Date: | 2018-06-28 23:22:15 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwa6o6EH6+RJhQLVSfwrnzfA9t7Bn9caFWcK_A-XGH+ykg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> > On 27 Jun 2018, at 18:02, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> > I found that there isn't explanation about EXCLUDING in CREATE TABLE doc.
> > Attached is a patch to add this. I would appreciate it if a native
> English
> > speaker comments on this.
>
> + If <literal>EXCLUDING</literal> option <literal></literal> is
> specified
>
> The empty <literal></literal> seems wrong.
>
> + after <literal>INCLUDING</literal> options, the specified thing is
> excluded
>
> “thing” sounds a bit vague here (and in the last sentence as well), but I’m
> also not sure what to use instead. “referenced objects" perhaps?
>
> +1 on documenting the EXCLUDING option though.
>
"is excluded" and "not copied" are redundant to each other and the first
sentence is basically redundant with the second.
Maybe try something like:
It is legal to specify the same option multiple times - e.g., "INCLUDING
option EXCLUDING option" - the outcome is whichever comes last in the
command (i.e., in the example, option is excluded).
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-28 23:22:55 | Re: Fix to not check included columns in ANALYZE on indexes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-28 23:18:36 | Re: Fix to not check included columns in ANALYZE on indexes |