Re: Subscript expressions do not have to evaluate to integers

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:47 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:21:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:22 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 02:59:18AM +, PG Doc comments form > wrote: > >

Re: Procedures

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:14 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:42:35PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > > [...] the CALL command. If the CALL command is not part of an explicit > > transaction a procedure can also manage multiple transactions during its > > execution. > >

Re: Create a Foreign Table for PostgreSQL CSV Logs

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:51 AM Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 08:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > Adding CHECK constraints and -- > > comments to the CREATE TABLE command would be a welcome addition. In > > particular I noticed: > > > > paragraph: client host:port

Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

On 2020-Aug-22, Tom Lane wrote: > If you don't want to go all the way and list the operators with their > input types, maybe we should just do what the OP thought was correct > and delete the duplicate operator names. It's already the case that > the table isn't telling you exactly which input

Re: Create a Foreign Table for PostgreSQL CSV Logs

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 08:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:58 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: > Good idea.  People have been confused about this before.  Attached is a > patch. > > > + It is also possible to access the file as a foreign data wrapper > +      

Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

Bruce Momjian writes: > Yeah, I kind of like the table myself too, because this topic is already > so complicated. Agreed. I'm not very happy with the suggestion of "(multiple)" though; I think that will just add confusion. If you don't want to go all the way and list the operators with their

Re: Procedures

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:42:35PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:52 PM Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Agreed, this doc area needs help. > > I developed the attached patach for this.  Is this sufficient? > > > For consistency I would change "statement" to

Re: Procedures

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:05:24PM +0100, Robin Abbi wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I developed the attached patach for this.  Is this sufficient? > > > Would it be appropriate to consider including some language with a similar > information content to this

Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 09:23:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:19:07PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Now that we can point people to psql's \dAo, do we really need to have > > these tables at all? > > Having the tables is IMO still useful as a quick reference for

Re: Subscript expressions do not have to evaluate to integers

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:21:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:22 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 02:59:18AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > >> I believe a more appropriate statement would acknowledge that

Re: Procedures

On Saturday, August 22, 2020, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > On 22.08.20 13:05, Robin Abbi wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I developed the attached patach for this. Is this sufficient? >> > > Would it be appropriate to consider including some language with a similar >

Re: Procedures

On 22.08.20 13:05, Robin Abbi wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:52, Bruce Momjian > wrote: I developed the attached patach for this.  Is this sufficient? Would it be appropriate to consider including some language with a similar information content to this "

Re: Minor fixes for PostgreSQL 13 documentation

Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 01:10:11PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote: >> - The function is passed a pointer to a >> local_relopts >> + The function is passed a pointer to a >> local_relopts > The docs of brin, gin, gist and spgist disagree with that. Wouldn't >

Re: Minor fixes for PostgreSQL 13 documentation

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 01:10:11PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote: > Please consider applying fixes for bugs (incorrect tags, redundant > spaces, etc.) I noticed while translating the documentation. Thanks, Alexander. I have applied and back-patched most of it down to 13. > - The function is

Re: Procedures

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I developed the attached patach for this. Is this sufficient? > Would it be appropriate to consider including some language with a similar information content to this > " ... prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable to manage

Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:19:07PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Now that we can point people to psql's \dAo, do we really need to have > these tables at all? Having the tables is IMO still useful as a quick reference for users that don't have immediately psql at hand when working on an

Minor fixes for PostgreSQL 13 documentation

Hello, Please consider applying fixes for bugs (incorrect tags, redundant spaces, etc.) I noticed while translating the documentation. Best regards, Alexander diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/btree.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/btree.sgml index d03ee4d6fa..435b7cb24d 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/btree.sgml +++