Re: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYJptm-QTcCB6V1Dunpa=BAnK06MJq97mbqpMFa8hx+Og@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet (Nikolay Shaplov <n.shaplov@postgrespro.ru>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: