Subject: Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>
References: <152056505045.4963.16783351661813640274@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAHE3wgiwDCwnS9QUZKAU0Pb_50FsXxLLy=XYB8oRcNkHpyU3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180330144007.GH8476@momjian.us>
Cc: scott.ure@caseware.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <fd2f903b-fbd4-8eaf-8152-5fb1eb595f59@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:51:50 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180330144007.GH8476@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/30/18 10:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:56:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> 2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>:
>>> From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
>>> in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
>>> however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
>>>
>> It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
>> documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
>> Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
>> patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
>> item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.
>>
> 
> Patch applied and backpatched to Postgres 10.  Thank.s

Per the nearby discussion, this should probably also be backpatched further.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services