public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bruno Wolff III <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages?
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:16:46 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 17:37:50 -0400,
Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm starting to look at updating the docs to match 7.4 error message
> spellings. I find that a large part of the work I'll have to do is in
> updating the "Diagnostics" (formerly "Outputs") section of the command
> reference pages. I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to just rip
> out these sections entirely. They seem like nearly content-free fluff
> to me --- the listings of possible error messages are always incomplete,
> often out of date, and arguably useless. If there is an error message
> that's not clear enough by itself, we'd better fix the error message
> instead of putting a gloss on it in the reference page.
>
> Comments?
I think that a listing of possible error messages essentially indexed by
command isn't very useful.
However some of the documentation in that section is useful. In particular
the information for INSERT covers stuff that isn't self explanatory in the
output message.
view thread (12+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox