Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:02:32 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Proofreading adjustments for
	first two parts of documentation
Message-ID: <20090427200232.GF10358@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <20090427162736.9DEF575407D@cvs.postgresql.org>
	<20090427171027.GL1539@fetter.org>
	<200904272150.14482.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<20090427185412.GP1539@fetter.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090427185412.GP1539@fetter.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:50:13PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Monday 27 April 2009 20:10:27 David Fetter wrote:
> > > While we're at it, can we see about moving foreign keys out of the
> > > "advanced" section?  They've been standard for many years.  Heck,
> > > even MySQL has had them, at least in some of their engines, for
> > > many years.
> > 
> > Advanced doesn't have to mean nonstandard, and standard doesn't have
> > to mean basic.
> 
> Are you seriously arguing that foreign keys aren't basic?  Seriously?

Five years from now, are we going to move "recursive queries" to the
basic section?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support