X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCAB9FB2DC;
	Thu,  3 Aug 2006 21:41:03 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 83737-04; Thu,  3 Aug 2006 21:40:53 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from linuxworld.com.au (unknown [203.34.46.50])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1259FB205;
	Thu,  3 Aug 2006 21:40:52 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from linuxworld.com.au (IDENT:swm@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k740ejjV016695;
	Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:40:45 +1000
Received: from localhost (swm@localhost)
	by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id
	k740eisD016692; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:40:45 +1000
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:40:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES]
In-Reply-To: <18685.1154617090@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0608041037080.16622@linuxworld.com.au>
References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net> <44B7ADFC.90205@dunslane.net>
	<44BC0432.3040509@joeconway.com> <44BC661F.80609@joeconway.com>
	<44CFFD2D.8040906@joeconway.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0608031523090.4590@linuxworld.com.au>
	<18685.1154617090@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.044 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200608/26
X-Sequence-Number: 3644

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> > Docs and regression tests attached.
>
> I've applied the regression tests (with a few additions), but I'm
> feeling dissatisfied with this approach to documenting VALUES.
> It seems to be mostly missing the point about VALUES being usable
> whereever SELECT is.  I'm not at all sure what I'd do instead though.
> Should we give VALUES its own reference page?  That doesn't quite
> seem helpful either.  cc'ing to pgsql-docs for ideas.

Good point. One question: are we happy calling this a 'VALUES list'? It's
better than a 'table value constructor'. I took the lead from a comment in the
source.

Thanks,

gavin