X-Original-To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474AE47634D for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9625C47634B for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3C4GI2L015988; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:16:19 -0400 (EDT) To: Curt Sampson Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 6.8.5: Location of CURRENT_DATE unclear In-reply-to: References: <13519.1050093254@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Curt Sampson message dated "Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:42:09 +0900" Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:16:18 -0400 Message-ID: <15987.1050120978@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200304/21 X-Sequence-Number: 1747 Curt Sampson writes: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote: >> The latter, as you could easily have found by experiment. > In fact, I did find that out by experiment. My real question, I guess, > is "is there some good reason not to have this information in the > documentation?" (In fact, I'm sure the answer is "no," Certainly. > so more the real > question is, "Is my whinging enough to get someone to add it, or do I > have to get off my lazy ass and submit a patch?") If you submit a doc patch, it'll get done ;-). Seriously, the docs are all too much written by people who already knew the answers. I like doc patches from people who found something out the hard way, because they tend to put the info where they expected to find it --- which isn't necessarily where the original developer thought to document it, but *is* likely to be where other users would look. regards, tom lane