On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 3:32 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > On 2025/07/03 11:08, Shinya Kato wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:48 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > > wrote: > > > >>>> Regarding the documentation, how about explicitly stating that when > >>>> MATCH is specified, only > >>>> the first line is skipped? While this may seem obvious, it’s worth > >>>> clarifying, as the semantics > >>>> of the HEADER option have become a bit more complex with this change. > >>> > >>> Agreed. I have updated the documentation as follows: > >>> > >>> + lines are discarded. If the option is set to > >>> <literal>MATCH</literal>, > >>> + the number and names of the columns in the header line must exactly > >>> + match those of the table and, in order, after which the header > >>> line is > >>> + discarded; otherwise an error is raised. The > >>> <literal>MATCH</literal> > >> > >> How about making the wording a bit clearer? For example: > >> > >> If set to MATCH, the first line is discarded, and it must contain > >> column names that > >> exactly match the table's columns, in both number and order; > >> otherwise, an error is raised. > > > > Thank you for the review. I fixed it. > > Thanks for updating the patch! I've pushed the patch. > > > >> Also, the phrase "if this option is set to..." is repeated three times in > >> the current text. > >> For the second and third instances, we could simplify it to just "if set > >> to...". > > > > Agreed. However, for the sake of symmetry between "On output" and "On > > input" and to maintain clarity between the paragraphs, I have omitted > > "this option is" from the "On input" paragraph only. > > Yes, I agree that's better. > > Regards, > > -- > Fujii Masao > NTT DATA Japan Corporation >
Thank you for pushing! -- Best regards, Shinya Kato NTT OSS Center
