Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:40:07 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>
Cc: scott.ure@caseware.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing
Message-ID: <20180330144007.GH8476@momjian.us>
References: <152056505045.4963.16783351661813640274@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAHE3wgiwDCwnS9QUZKAU0Pb_50FsXxLLy=XYB8oRcNkHpyU3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHE3wgiwDCwnS9QUZKAU0Pb_50FsXxLLy=XYB8oRcNkHpyU3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:56:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> 2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>:
> > From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
> > in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
> > however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
> >
> It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
> documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
> Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
> patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
> item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.
> 

Patch applied and backpatched to Postgres 10.  Thank.s

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +