Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your prompt feedback.

Attached, please find the updated documentation patch, which incorporates your suggestions from both the first and second rounds of review.

--
Oleg Sibiryakov

On 13 Oct 2025, at 12:51, Oleg <[email protected]> wrote:

- <command>COPY</command> and other functions which allow executing a
+ the <command>COPY</command> command and functions, which allow executing a
I'm not sure about these, I think we use COPY without the the "the COPY
command" decoration in many places so I think it's more consistent like this.

I actually think we should add the decoration here because "<command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions"
sounds a bit confusing since COPY is not a file-access function and we seem to put it in the list. Even though I 
agree that everybody knows COPY is a command, not a function.

We refer to SQL commands by just their names all over the documentation without
saying "an EXPLAIN command" etc, and I think this falls in that same category.

- to call functions defined in the standard internal library, by using an
+ to call functions defined in the standard internal function library by using an
interface similar to their SQL signature.
Isn't it a bit redundant to say "internal function library" when we are already
talking about function definitions?

I agree that it may seem redundant, I added "function" here for the sake of consistency with lines 1829/1830 (if applied to the master branch)
where the documentation mentions "standard internal function library".

I hadn't seen that, but with that in mind I agree that being consistent is good
so I'll withdraw that comment.

--
Daniel Gustafsson