Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqSRFNOsSOgOtdTBaTr55a1WMpi_qU0TWJaEuGz4RhFOhg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #14135: SQL command "analyse" is undocumented
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 05/12/2016 05:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. If the choice is only between those two, I'd vote for nuking it and simplify the code, but honestly the current statu-quo has been running for 16 years and there are not many complains about it, so as a third choice the current situation is fine IMO. And it does not represent an extra maintenance load. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: