Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:41:59 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>, scott.ure@caseware.com,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing
Message-ID: <20180402204159.GA30362@momjian.us>
References: <152056505045.4963.16783351661813640274@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAHE3wgiwDCwnS9QUZKAU0Pb_50FsXxLLy=XYB8oRcNkHpyU3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180330144007.GH8476@momjian.us>
 <fd2f903b-fbd4-8eaf-8152-5fb1eb595f59@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fd2f903b-fbd4-8eaf-8152-5fb1eb595f59@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr  2, 2018 at 11:51:50AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/30/18 10:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Per the nearby discussion, this should probably also be backpatched further.

OK, backpatched through 9.3.


-- 
  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 +