From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: "jonathan@allard.io" <jonathan@allard.io>,
        "pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: json_populate_record
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwbx6vZAh7zZOmW5ZGVbnWutkLHedns3tdwho9KUiJdOCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <159735707636.14318.16593767440601969688@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAKFQuwbx6vZAh7zZOmW5ZGVbnWutkLHedns3tdwho9KUiJdOCA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:08:41 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <538491.1597365546.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 20:39:06 -0400
Message-ID: <538492.1597365546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thursday, August 13, 2020, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.o=
rg>
> wrote:
>> It is not clear what the parameter `base` means

> I agree there is room for improvement here.  The referenced note does=E2=
=80=99t use
> the term =E2=80=9Cbase=E2=80=9D which making finding the correct note am=
ong the various
> possibilities more difficult.

Yeah, that used to be pretty unreadable.  I think the reformatting of
these tables that I did for v13 helps a lot, though:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-json.html

			regards, tom lane