X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EE59FA306; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:57:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63761-06; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:56:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from grzm.com (grzm.com [200.46.204.98]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3B39FB2B7; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:56:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.251]) by grzm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A268127CBF2; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:56:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from grzm.com ([200.46.204.98]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42444-07; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:56:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [172.16.1.101] (unknown [61.197.227.146]) by grzm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295FC127C4EB; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:56:21 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <18685.1154617090@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net> <44B7ADFC.90205@dunslane.net> <44BC0432.3040509@joeconway.com> <44BC661F.80609@joeconway.com> <44CFFD2D.8040906@joeconway.com> <18685.1154617090@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <429A0065-78C7-48C9-B2DC-E898988F93E6@seespotcode.net> Cc: Gavin Sherry , Joe Conway , pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Glaesemann Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 00:56:20 +0900 To: Tom Lane X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.816 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200608/4 X-Sequence-Number: 3622 On Aug 3, 2006, at 23:58 , Tom Lane wrote: > Should we give VALUES its own reference page? That doesn't quite > seem helpful either. > I think we should go for a separate reference page, as VALUES appears to be expanding quite a bit. Up till now I've thought of VALUES only in conjunction with UPDATE, so perhaps a useful alternative would be to keep all of the information regarding VALUES and its syntax would be as a large part of the UPDATE reference page, though that would imply by placement (even if explained otherwise) that VALUES is only a part of the UPDATE syntax, which it no longer (?) is. That brings me back to the idea of VALUES deserving its own reference page. I wonder how soon pretty much the entire SQL spec will be duplicated in the PostgreSQL documentation. :) Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net