On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:16:46PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yeah, I don't see why we need to document it three times in the same
> chapter.
>
> Also, that chapter is specifically about version 3.0 of the protocol, so
> documenting version 2.0 is out of scope.
This has been marked as
On 25/09/2018 13:55, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:51 AM Bradley DeJong wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-09-22, Amit Kapila wrote ...
>> > ... duplicate the same information in different words at three
>> different places ...
>>
>> I count 7 different places. In the protocol docs, there is
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:51 AM Bradley DeJong wrote:
>
> On 2018-09-22, Amit Kapila wrote ...
> > ... duplicate the same information in different words at three
> different places ...
>
> I count 7 different places. In the protocol docs, there is the old
> mention in the "Summary of Changes
Thanks for the feedback.
On 2018-09-22, Amit Kapila wrote ...
> ... Why can't we just extend the current Note where it is currently
...
Because information about how the protocol works belongs in the protocol
documentation not in the documentation for one implementation of the
protocol.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:54 PM Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> >> Hello Bradley & Tatsuo-san,
> >>
> ... references to the protocol version lacks homogeneity.
> ... I'd suggest to keep "the vX.0 protocol" for a short version,
> and "the version X.0 protocol" for long ...
> >>>
> >>> I
>> Hello Bradley & Tatsuo-san,
>>
... references to the protocol version lacks homogeneity.
... I'd suggest to keep "the vX.0 protocol" for a short version,
and "the version X.0 protocol" for long ...
>>>
>>> I agree. Change made.
>>
>> Patch applies cleanly. Doc build ok.
>>
>>
> Hello Bradley & Tatsuo-san,
>
>>> ... references to the protocol version lacks homogeneity.
>>> ... I'd suggest to keep "the vX.0 protocol" for a short version,
>>> and "the version X.0 protocol" for long ...
>>
>> I agree. Change made.
>
> Patch applies cleanly. Doc build ok.
>
> One part
Hello Bradley & Tatsuo-san,
... references to the protocol version lacks homogeneity.
... I'd suggest to keep "the vX.0 protocol" for a short version,
and "the version X.0 protocol" for long ...
I agree. Change made.
Patch applies cleanly. Doc build ok.
One part talks about "terminating
On 2018-08-27, Fabien COELHO wrote ...
> ... references to the protocol version lacks homogeneity.
> ... I'd suggest to keep "the vX.0 protocol" for a short version,
> and "the version X.0 protocol" for long ...
I agree. Change made.
protocol.v3.patch
Description: Binary data
> Hello Bradley & Tatsuo-san,
>
> My 0.02€ on the text:
>
>> Version 2.0 of the PostgreSQL protocol
>> In the v3.0 protocol,
>> the 3.0 protocol
>> version 3.0 of the copy-in/copy-out sub-protocol
>> the V2.0 protocol.
>
> While reading nice English (I learned "holdover"), it occurs to me
>
Hello Bradley & Tatsuo-san,
My 0.02€ on the text:
Version 2.0 of the PostgreSQL protocol
In the v3.0 protocol,
the 3.0 protocol
version 3.0 of the copy-in/copy-out sub-protocol
the V2.0 protocol.
While reading nice English (I learned "holdover"), it occurs to me that
references to the
> On 2018-08-25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote to the pgsql-docs mailing list ...
>> Hi Bradley,
>> Thank you for your follow up. Your patch looks good to me.
>> Can you please re-send your message in pgsql-hackers attaching to this
>> thread ...
>> CommitFest app does not allow ... emails other than posted
On 2018-08-25, Tatsuo Ishii wrote to the pgsql-docs mailing list ...
> Hi Bradley,
> Thank you for your follow up. Your patch looks good to me.
> Can you please re-send your message in pgsql-hackers attaching to this
thread ...
> CommitFest app does not allow ... emails other than posted to
Hello Tatsuo-san,
Minor suggestions, although I'm not a native English speaker.
Well, I did not intend to enhance libpq.sgml but maybe your points is
valid (I cannot judge because I am not an native English speaker).
Argh, sorry, I did not read the right part:-(
The note looks good to
Hi Fabien,
Thank you for the comment.
> Hello Tatsuo-san,
>
> Minor suggestions, although I'm not a native English speaker.
>
>> In libpq.sgml following is stated:
>>
>>Before PostgreSQL protocol 3.0, it was
>>necessary
>>for the application to explicitly send the two
Hello Tatsuo-san,
Minor suggestions, although I'm not a native English speaker.
In libpq.sgml following is stated:
Before PostgreSQL protocol 3.0, it was
necessary
for the application to explicitly send the two characters
\. as a final line to indicate to the server
In libpq.sgml following is stated:
Before PostgreSQL protocol 3.0, it was
necessary
for the application to explicitly send the two characters
\. as a final line to indicate to the server that it
had
finished sending COPY data. While this still works,
it is
17 matches
Mail list logo
