On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>>> I do not like the use of parentheses in the usage description "list >>>> (procedural) languages". Why not have it simply as "list procedural >>>> languages"? >>> >>> Because it lists non-procedural langauges as well? (I didn't check it, >>> that's just a guess) >> >> There are many places in our code and documentation where "procedural >> language" or "language" are treated as synonyms. There's no semantic >> difference; procedural is simply a noise word. > > [bikeshedding] > > I agree with Andreas' suggestion that the help string be "list > procedural languages", even though the \dLS output looks something > like this: > > List of languages > Procedural Language | Owner | Trusted > ---------------------+-------+--------- > c | josh | f > internal | josh | f > plpgsql | josh | t > sql | josh | t > (4 rows)
By the by, in the output of \df, \dt, \db, etc., that first column is called simply "Name". > which, as Magnus points out, includes non-procedural languages (SQL). > > I think that "list languages" could be confusing to newcomers -- the > very people who might be reading through the help output of psql for > the first time -- who might suppose that "languages" has something to > do with the character sets supported by PostgreSQL, and might not even > be aware that a variety of procedural languages can be used inside the > database. Fair point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
