Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951559FB341
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  8 Apr 2007 23:28:38 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 03482-03 for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  8 Apr 2007 23:28:34 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3549FB249
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Sun,  8 Apr 2007 23:28:34 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l392SN7c013704;
	Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:28:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org,
	Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Fix misleading references to columns in GRANT/REVOKE
	summaries
In-reply-to: <200704090146.l391kMd08592@momjian.us> 
References: <200704090146.l391kMd08592@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:46:21 -0400"
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:28:23 -0400
Message-ID: <13703.1176085703@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200704/9
X-Sequence-Number: 4205

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That doesn't mean this one isn't useful.  Please revert this.

> Well, Tom and I thought it caused confusion, as did the person reporting
> the confusion.  You saying to revert it isn't enough.

A possible compromise is to describe or show the syntax in some informal
form, so that it didn't look like one of the <synopsis> sections we use
for supported syntax.  I'm not sure what that would look like exactly,
but I do see merit in both sides of this discussion...

			regards, tom lane