Bruce Momjian wrote:
> [ resent without large attachment]
>
> I mentioned on my blog that I am proofreading our documentation:
>
> http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog.html#April_22_2009
>
> I have gotten through the first two parts (Tutorial, SQL Language), and
> have have created the foll
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:27:36PM +, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Log Message:
> ---
> Proofreading adjustments for first two parts of documentation (Tutorial
> and SQL).
>
> Modified Files:
> --
> pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
> advanced.sgml (r1.57 -> r1.58)
>
> (ht
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On Friday 24 April 2009 15:48:52 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Apologies, I quoted the wrong section; I meant to ask about this
> >>> sentence:
> >>>
> >>> The following functions return XML Schema documents describing the
> >
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Couldn't the sentence be trimmed to just
>>
>> The following functions return XML Schema documents describing the
>> mappings produced by the corresponding functions above.
> I updated the text to:
> The following functions return XML Schema docume
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Couldn't the sentence be trimmed to just
> >>
> >> The following functions return XML Schema documents describing the
> >> mappings produced by the corresponding functions above.
>
> > I updated the text to:
>
> > The followin
On Sunday 26 April 2009 18:27:27 Tom Lane wrote:
> Couldn't the sentence be trimmed to just
>
> The following functions return XML Schema documents describing the
> mappings produced by the corresponding functions above.
Sounds good.
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@p
On Monday 27 April 2009 20:20:29 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I updated the text to:
>
> The following functions return XML Schema documents similar to the
> mappings produced by the corresponding functions above:
Sorry, that is completely wrong.
Are you aware of what "XML Schema" is? Should t
On Monday 27 April 2009 20:10:27 David Fetter wrote:
> While we're at it, can we see about moving foreign keys out of the
> "advanced" section? They've been standard for many years. Heck, even
> MySQL has had them, at least in some of their engines, for many years.
Advanced doesn't have to mean
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Monday 27 April 2009 20:20:29 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I updated the text to:
> >
> > The following functions return XML Schema documents similar to the
> > mappings produced by the corresponding functions above:
OK, that is what is in our SGML now.
> Sorry, t
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:50:13PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Monday 27 April 2009 20:10:27 David Fetter wrote:
> > While we're at it, can we see about moving foreign keys out of the
> > "advanced" section? They've been standard for many years. Heck,
> > even MySQL has had them, at least
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Monday 27 April 2009 20:20:29 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I updated the text to:
> > >
> > > The following functions return XML Schema documents similar to the
> > > mappings produced by the corresponding functions above:
>
> OK, that is
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:50:13PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Monday 27 April 2009 20:10:27 David Fetter wrote:
> > > While we're at it, can we see about moving foreign keys out of the
> > > "advanced" section? They've been standard for many years. Heck,
> > > eve
On Monday 27 April 2009 21:54:12 David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:50:13PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Monday 27 April 2009 20:10:27 David Fetter wrote:
> > > While we're at it, can we see about moving foreign keys out of the
> > > "advanced" section? They've been standard
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:56:28PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Monday 27 April 2009 21:54:12 David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:50:13PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On Monday 27 April 2009 20:10:27 David Fetter wrote:
> > > > While we're at it, can we see about movin
David Fetter writes:
> My point in all this is that, "advanced" isn't frozen forever in time,
> and neither is, "basic."
No, but the "basic" chapter is trying to teach people what tables and
indexes are. I think it's reasonable to categorize FKs as a level
beyond that.
It would probably be fair
15 matches
Mail list logo
