On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:31:35AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:11:04AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Can we please just address this docs issue? If you don't like my > solution > can > > you please supply a patch that you feel addresses the problem? Or > clearly > state > > that you don't think there is a problem, and do so in a way that > actually > > addresses the specific points I have raised about what's wrong with the > status > > quo? > > If we know there are X problems, and we fix one of them one way, then > later fix the rest another way, we have to undo the first fix. If you > don't want to fix all X, then let's wait until someone does want to fix > them all. > > IMO there is only the original problem with an acceptable solution presented > that can be committed without downside. If that has to be undone because > someone else in the future decides on a different solution that happens to > touch this too, fine, it can be changed again.
The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections just to allow for references to old syntax, and you then have to find them all and remove them when you implement the proper solution. I have no intention of applying such an X-1 fix. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
