2014/1/12 Bruce Momjian
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:06:27PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014/1/11 Tom Lane
> >
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> > > proposed documentation for '='.
> >
> > Meh.
2014/1/12 Bruce Momjian
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:06:27PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014/1/11 Tom Lane
> >
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> > > proposed documentation for '='.
> >
> > Meh.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:06:27PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014/1/11 Tom Lane
>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> > proposed documentation for '='.
>
> Meh. Variable initialization is only one of mul
2014/1/11 Tom Lane
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> > proposed documentation for '='.
>
> Meh. Variable initialization is only one of multiple cases (assignment,
> GET DIAGNOSTICS; maybe others, I've not examined the grammar). Al
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, here is an updated doc patch that does that.
You're still only touching the variable-initialization case, which seems
like the least important place to document it. I'd have put it with
the assignment-statement documentation. Perhaps something like
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 02:12:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> > proposed documentation for '='.
>
> Meh. Variable initialization is only one of multiple cases (assignment,
> GET DIAGNOSTICS; maybe other
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Oh, I think you are right. I have reverted the patch. Attached is
> proposed documentation for '='.
Meh. Variable initialization is only one of multiple cases (assignment,
GET DIAGNOSTICS; maybe others, I've not examined the grammar). Also,
if we do it like this, we're
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:52:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:02:20AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> remove undocumented syntax for assign statements in plpgsql doc examples
>
> > Applied.
>
> I thought the consensus in the referenced thread h
is not better to be consistent in doc?
Im not aganst to documentation second syntax, but examples in doc should be
consistent
Dne 11. 1. 2014 19:52 "Tom Lane" napsal(a):
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:02:20AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> remove undocumented syntax fo
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:02:20AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> remove undocumented syntax for assign statements in plpgsql doc examples
> Applied.
I thought the consensus in the referenced thread had been to go the other
way. We're not going to remove the syntax optio
Applied.
---
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:02:20AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> remove undocumented syntax for assign statements in plpgsql doc examples
>
> related to
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ4Cx
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:19:45AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> doc/src/sgml/query.sgml includes a tutorial example with this definition:
>
> CREATE TABLE weather (
> ...
> datedate
> );
>
> The fact that "date" is used for both the column name and the type
> is highlighted by two l
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/upgrading.html
>
> ... no mention of pg_restore of any kind. Is there any reason why
> someone (maybe me) *shouldn't* rewrite this to include pg_restore?
>
I can't see any reason - it defi
13 matches
Mail list logo
