From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: t.kitynski@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion for deprecated spellings
In-reply-to: <Y9grBFU+2DBXBB7z@momjian.us>
References: <167473556945.2667294.2003897901995802549@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <Y9grBFU+2DBXBB7z@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Mon, 30 Jan 2023 15:39:32 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <888258.1675112866.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:07:46 -0500
Message-ID: <888259.1675112866@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/888259.1675112866%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:19:29PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> From time to time some spelling for given command gets obsolete, yet it is
>> shown in the syntax on "equal rights" as other valid clauses.

> We don't need to show all _supported_ syntaxes in the "Synopsis"
> section, so we could just remove them.

IIRC, there is precedent in COPY for moving obsolete alternatives
to a separate part of the man page.  I'd prefer that to just
removing them, because then there is no documentation to help
someone understand what an old SQL script is doing.

			regards, tom lane