> On Nov 17, 2025, at 08:30, Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 7:02 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2025, at 15:47, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:23 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A rebase was needed. Here is patch v3.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch! LGTM.
>>>
>>> For example, in the CREATE PUBLICATION synopsis, the part that can be
>>> repeated is "[ ONLY ] table_name ... [ WHERE ( expression ) ]" not just
>>> the WHERE clause, so using curly brackets around that seems correct.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. {…} means “choose exactly one of the following alternatives”,
>> but not for grouping for repetition.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> ```
>> GRANT { { SELECT | INSERT | UPDATE | DELETE | TRUNCATE | REFERENCES |
>> TRIGGER | MAINTAIN }
>> [, ...] | ALL [ PRIVILEGES ] }
>> ON { [ TABLE ] table_name [, ...]
>> | ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA schema_name [, ...] }
>> TO role_specification [, ...] [ WITH GRANT OPTION ]
>> [ GRANTED BY role_specification ]
>> ```
>>
>> The two levels of {} are all for alternatives.
>>
>> So, I think the correct way is like:
>>
>> ```
>> TABLE table_spec [, TABLE table_spec … ]
>> ```
>>
>
> Fair point. I've changed v4 to use a syntax similar to your suggestion:
>
> But, instead of "TABLE <table_spec> [, <table_spec> ...]", I am just
> using "TABLE <table_spec> [,...]". Maybe it is not strictly correct,
> but AFAICT it is consistent with how [,...] is used elsewhere in this
> and other synopses.
> e.g. we don't say "<column_name> [, <column_name> ...]"
>
> ~~~
>
> Actually, I had a couple of other changes in the pipeline for the
> synopsis that I was going to post as separate patches, but since this
> has become a larger change, it is probably more appropriate to address
> them all at once instead of churning the same synopsis multiple times.
>
> So, now this patch makes the following 3 changes:
>
> #1.
> My original change, to fix the [, ...] grouping to remove ambiguity.
>
> #2
> Now renames "all_publication_object" to "publication_all_objects".
> This is a simple name change that does not affect anything. I felt
> everything ought to have the prefix of the object it belongs to (e.g.
> "publication_name", "publication_parameter", "table_name",
> "schema_name", column_name" all follow this rule, but prefix "all_"
> was the odd-one-out).
>
I don’t like this renaming. Or at lease don’t use plural.
> #3
> Rearranged the synopsis order from general to detailed. Again, there
> is no functional difference; I just felt it was better to use the
> natural logical order: e.g., "publication_all_objects" >
> "publication_object"
>
I think PG doc usually place the most common form first. For publications,
TABLE is used far more than TABLES IN SCHEMA. For example, if you look at
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/sql-grant.html, it doesn’t follow the
general->detailed rule.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
