Re: DROP relation IF EXISTS Docs and Tests - Bug Fix
От | David G. Johnston |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DROP relation IF EXISTS Docs and Tests - Bug Fix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKFQuwa4__dKp7p9SjE-gf+ZmPbqs2MNOz9UcA-4o2xPsR17Tg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DROP relation IF EXISTS Docs and Tests - Bug Fix (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> My main point here is that writing "CREATE TYPE typename AS DOMAIN" would
> be expected, with the appropriate sub-specification, similar to "CREATE
> TYPE typename AS RANGE".
Well, that point seems entirely invented. CREATE DOMAIN is in the
SQL standard:
<domain definition> ::=
CREATE DOMAIN <domain name> [ AS ] <predefined type>
[ <default clause> ]
[ <domain constraint>... ]
[ <collate clause> ]
While SQL does also have a CREATE TYPE command, domains are not
among the kinds of type it can make. So that separation is
very much per spec.
I don't personally find the doc changes proposed here to be a good idea.
001 seems to add a lot of verbosity and not much else.
The intent is to add accuracy, which means verbosity given the non-obvious choice made in the current implementation.
002 invents terms
used nowhere else in our docs, which seems more confusing than anything
else.
Fair point - was hoping it would be discussion starter.
It is very badly in need of copy-editing, as well.
I'll look at it with fresh eyes...
Also, I think the phrase you are looking for might be "type category".
Actually what I want is "Type type (typtype)" according to pg_type but that seemed like an implementation detail that would be undesirable to use here so I tried to give it a different name. Type category (typcategory) already has a meaning.
Using "type definition" to mean that seems completely wrong. Deciding
that capitalized Type means something special is something I might expect
to find in one of the more abstruse philosophers, but it's not a great
idea in the Postgres manual ... especially when you then use different
terminology elsewhere.
I very well may have been inconsistent but coupled with the above point "type of the Type" seems easier to follow compared to "type of the type" if I were to change "type definition" to "type of the Type".
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: