From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Alan B <alan77codebits@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add clarification example to EXEC SQL CONNECT with password
In-reply-to: <20130125181921.GD6848@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAGbN=G6P1dy4Q03oKdQig_oUWj82W_x67MRMwX2J+9DrFc=cxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130125161942.GA6848@momjian.us> <14376.1359134732@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20130125172959.GB6848@momjian.us> <14933.1359136212@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20130125181921.GD6848@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:19:21 -0500"
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:41:06 -0500
Message-ID: <16178.1359139266@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:50:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (looks at the whole section) As-is, it's definitely not good, because
>> before there were three independent examples, and now there are three
>> and a half --- the added example depends on the variables declared in
>> the third example.  But using the blank line means you've formatted it
>> as a stand-alone fourth example, which is not only wrong in itself but
>> it screws up the meanings of both of the subsequent paragraphs.

> OK, how is this?  The C comment allows me to add 'or'.

It's still completely failing to address the problem that it's formatted
as a fourth, independent example.  Please remove the blank line.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs