Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671ABEDF36D for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 04:22:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SWjQl-0007ag-CU for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 07:22:55 +0000 Received: by obbtb18 with SMTP id tb18so9240951obb.19 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5EqhV9/HIN7asIScyzo2wOxTD27zDwrgQJxRMh4Rq8c=; b=kDQ6TADBUFRkkQOeU+2Xhtdfr5ZpFWAXpIyIjEVGIyH1aax5rO/7wufZmtb8/jkZvG JzkVN8/o7RtaKcdJ5Us5HmL0HOUW8iuO8bk9IN4OrZEsx/vcNfQLGxhelKltBytVR9wn nxtLS12/QXfmn6VIalcieQmS3QYAYQvbXoYI6/gS+C6zHXyRVmzPYwq2aie0NJDiaVX5 Jbd0/6ixjBVG1dS5grXEcVlsdrkhlZU5YCQlugJzvXWsj+uKoz1fnWj/NdmlzwpL2SPR YrWPs9NW6o6mBCPf9kqAw9UKD9S1kC82fWkn5z59oS99JeBhWc3qc3aiXXMglQ2uycnQ Jvdw== Received: by 10.182.46.36 with SMTP id s4mr21395218obm.58.1337671362650; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.146.180 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <17585.1337616565@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <17585.1337616565@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Josh Kupershmidt Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:22:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON synopsis To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-docs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201205/25 X-Sequence-Number: 7350 On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > The main inconsistency I notice on that page is that some of the > subform descriptions repeat the whole syntax while others only show > the initial keyword(s). =A0Should we try to be more consistent about > that, and if so, in which direction? Well, that's far from the only inconsistency. Some commands are described in separate lines in the beginning synopsis, and then clumped together under a single description with vague instructions in the body (e.g. RENAME COLUMN / RENAME CONSTRAINT / RENAME TO ). Some commands give you all the syntax you need in the synopsis, and some punt you to the ref page for CREATE TABLE or elsewhere for the syntax. As you noted, some commands repeat the whole syntax and some show only initial keyword(s). Others show only the latter half of the syntax and hope you know what it's talking about (e.g. SET STATISTICS). Some commands show up in the Examples section, some don't. Not all of the possible parameters are documented under the "Parameters" section (e.g. type_name seems to be missing). The page is kind of a mess, but I'm a little unsure about how to attack your issue and most of my gripes. I got the impression that the intent for the subform descriptions you complained about was to show the keywords in places where it was needed to distinguish the command from some other similar one (e.g. RESET attribute_option vs. RESET storage_parameter or ADD table_constraint vs. ADD table_constraint_using_index), though of course that's not totally consistent (e.g. INHERIT and NO INHERIT wouldn't need "parent_table" under this rule in the Descriptions). Of course, other reference pages seem to have different rules of thumb about when to list keywords in the description: CREATE TABLE seems to like the keywords more. Josh