public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedInheritance mention
6+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Inheritance mention
@ 2009-04-13 02:22 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 05:14 ` Re: Inheritance mention Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2009-04-13 02:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
Do people feel we should continue documenting that Postgres pre-7.1
didn't reference child tables by default?
(In releases before 7.1, <literal>ONLY</> was the default
behavior.) The default behavior can be modified by changing
the <xref linkend="guc-sql-inheritance"> configuration option.
I see this mentioned four places in the documentation.
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Inheritance mention
2009-04-13 02:22 Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
@ 2009-04-13 05:14 ` Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 06:04 ` Re: Inheritance mention Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira @ 2009-04-13 05:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Bruce Momjian escreveu:
> Do people feel we should continue documenting that Postgres pre-7.1
> didn't reference child tables by default?
>
No. IMHO we should remove references to unsupported releases from documentation.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Inheritance mention
2009-04-13 02:22 Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 05:14 ` Re: Inheritance mention Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
@ 2009-04-13 06:04 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 16:47 ` Re: Inheritance mention Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2009-04-13 06:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>; +Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
>> Do people feel we should continue documenting that Postgres pre-7.1
>> didn't reference child tables by default?
>>
> No. IMHO we should remove references to unsupported releases from documentation.
"Unsupported releases" is far too strict a criterion for this. For
example, there are demonstrably still people using 7.2 (we had a
question about it just last week). They will still appreciate these
notes when they get around to updating.
Pre-7.1 might indeed be old enough to cut, but how much are we really
saving? Four sentences out of our current docs doesn't excite me ...
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Inheritance mention
2009-04-13 02:22 Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 05:14 ` Re: Inheritance mention Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 06:04 ` Re: Inheritance mention Tom Lane <[email protected]>
@ 2009-04-13 16:47 ` Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 17:21 ` Re: Inheritance mention Tom Lane <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2009-04-13 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian escreveu:
>>> Do people feel we should continue documenting that Postgres pre-7.1
>>> didn't reference child tables by default?
>>>
>> No. IMHO we should remove references to unsupported releases from documentation.
>
> "Unsupported releases" is far too strict a criterion for this. For
> example, there are demonstrably still people using 7.2 (we had a
> question about it just last week). They will still appreciate these
> notes when they get around to updating.
>
> Pre-7.1 might indeed be old enough to cut, but how much are we really
> saving? Four sentences out of our current docs doesn't excite me ...
But since there's a doc set per version, it would make sense to stop
mentioning unsupported versions in the docs for supported versions,
no? Or is this a FAQ thing we're talking about?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Inheritance mention
2009-04-13 02:22 Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 05:14 ` Re: Inheritance mention Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 06:04 ` Re: Inheritance mention Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 16:47 ` Re: Inheritance mention Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
@ 2009-04-13 17:21 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2009-04-15 22:42 ` Re: Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2009-04-13 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>; +Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Pre-7.1 might indeed be old enough to cut, but how much are we really
>> saving? �Four sentences out of our current docs doesn't excite me ...
> But since there's a doc set per version, it would make sense to stop
> mentioning unsupported versions in the docs for supported versions,
> no? Or is this a FAQ thing we're talking about?
The problem is what to tell people to read if they want to transition
from an unsupported version to a supported version.
If we really wanted to save some space, we could cut all the release
notes for pre-7.4 (soon pre-8.0) releases. But somehow that doesn't
seem like a good idea. What it would mainly accomplish is to make it
hard to find the old information when you wanted it.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Inheritance mention
2009-04-13 02:22 Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 05:14 ` Re: Inheritance mention Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 06:04 ` Re: Inheritance mention Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 16:47 ` Re: Inheritance mention Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 17:21 ` Re: Inheritance mention Tom Lane <[email protected]>
@ 2009-04-15 22:42 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2009-04-15 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>; Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Pre-7.1 might indeed be old enough to cut, but how much are we really
> >> saving? Four sentences out of our current docs doesn't excite me ...
>
> > But since there's a doc set per version, it would make sense to stop
> > mentioning unsupported versions in the docs for supported versions,
> > no? Or is this a FAQ thing we're talking about?
>
> The problem is what to tell people to read if they want to transition
> from an unsupported version to a supported version.
>
> If we really wanted to save some space, we could cut all the release
> notes for pre-7.4 (soon pre-8.0) releases. But somehow that doesn't
> seem like a good idea. What it would mainly accomplish is to make it
> hard to find the old information when you wanted it.
It is not a question of documention bulk but the burden of having users
wade through a paragraph that is much more complex because of the 7.1
mention.
I have applied the attached patch to remove mention of the 7.1 behavior
in alter_table and select; I have kept the main documentation mentions
unchanged. I also still reference the sql_inheritance GUC variable,
where there are more details.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my original posting; I never wanted to remove
all mentions, but rather retain mentions in logical locations.
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Attachments:
[text/x-diff] /rtmp/diff (3.1K, 2-%2Frtmp%2Fdiff)
download | inline diff:
Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.104
diff -c -c -r1.104 alter_table.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml 11 Feb 2009 21:11:15 -0000 1.104
--- doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml 15 Apr 2009 22:35:28 -0000
***************
*** 450,462 ****
<para>
The name (possibly schema-qualified) of an existing table to
alter. If <literal>ONLY</> is specified, only that table is
! altered. If <literal>ONLY</> is not specified, the table and all
! its descendant tables (if any) are updated. <literal>*</> can be
! appended to the table name to indicate that descendant tables are
! to be altered, but in the current version, this is the default
! behavior. (In releases before 7.1, <literal>ONLY</> was the
! default behavior. The default can be altered by changing the
! configuration parameter <xref linkend="guc-sql-inheritance">.)
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
--- 450,459 ----
<para>
The name (possibly schema-qualified) of an existing table to
alter. If <literal>ONLY</> is specified, only that table is
! altered. If <literal>ONLY</> is not specified, the table and any
! descendant tables are altered. The default can be changed
! using the configuration parameter <xref
! linkend="guc-sql-inheritance">.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.120
diff -c -c -r1.120 select.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml 2 Feb 2009 20:42:57 -0000 1.120
--- doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml 15 Apr 2009 22:35:32 -0000
***************
*** 271,282 ****
The name (optionally schema-qualified) of an existing table or
view. If <literal>ONLY</> is specified, only that table is
scanned. If <literal>ONLY</> is not specified, the table and
! all its descendant tables (if any) are scanned. <literal>*</>
! can be appended to the table name to indicate that descendant
! tables are to be scanned, but in the current version, this is
! the default behavior. (In releases before 7.1,
! <literal>ONLY</> was the default behavior.) The default
! behavior can be modified by changing the <xref
linkend="guc-sql-inheritance"> configuration option.
</para>
</listitem>
--- 271,278 ----
The name (optionally schema-qualified) of an existing table or
view. If <literal>ONLY</> is specified, only that table is
scanned. If <literal>ONLY</> is not specified, the table and
! any descendant tables are scanned. The default
! behavior can be changed using the <xref
linkend="guc-sql-inheritance"> configuration option.
</para>
</listitem>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-15 22:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-04-13 02:22 Inheritance mention Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 05:14 ` Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 06:04 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 16:47 ` Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
2009-04-13 17:21 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]>
2009-04-15 22:42 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox