public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Re: Documentation weirdness 3+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* Re: Documentation weirdness @ 2026-03-02 18:36 David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 18:42 ` Re: Documentation weirdness Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2026-03-02 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Monday, March 2, 2026, Peter J. Holzer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2026-03-01 19:08:48 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 6:38 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, ALL, > > I'm looking at https://www.postgresql.org/ > docs/current/sql-createtable.html > > and see some weird stuff. > > > > When I try to search for "PRIMARY KEY" I eventually hit following: > > > > [quote] > > PRIMARY KEY (column constraint) > > PRIMARY KEY ( column_name [, ... ] [, column_name WITHOUT OVERLAPS ] > ) > > [ INCLUDE ( column_name [, ...]) ] (table constraint) > > [/quote] > > > > Now I want to check what "column_constraint" is. > > > > > > You read in an underscore in the parenthetical that isn't there. That > said, I > > concur that using a label here that so closely matches something that > exists > > within the page, to mean something else, is just asking for this kind of > > confusion. > > Would it be possible to set (column constraint) and (table constraint) > in the normal body font instead of monospace? That would make it clearer > that these phrases aren't part of the syntax but descriptive. > > Not sure, but I don’t like that as the sole solution anyway. Too subtle. If three words is too long, replacing constraint with variant, instead of adding it, would suffice IMO. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Documentation weirdness 2026-03-02 18:36 Re: Documentation weirdness David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2026-03-02 18:42 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 23:27 ` Re: Documentation weirdness David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2026-03-02 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> "David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes: > On Monday, March 2, 2026, Peter J. Holzer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Would it be possible to set (column constraint) and (table constraint) >> in the normal body font instead of monospace? That would make it clearer >> that these phrases aren't part of the syntax but descriptive. > Not sure, but I don’t like that as the sole solution anyway. Too subtle. Agreed, but we could/should do it along with modifying the text. I thought your addition of "variant" was a good idea. I didn't look closely at the rest of your diff. regards, tom lane ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Documentation weirdness 2026-03-02 18:36 Re: Documentation weirdness David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 18:42 ` Re: Documentation weirdness Tom Lane <[email protected]> @ 2026-03-02 23:27 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2026-03-02 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 11:42 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes: > > On Monday, March 2, 2026, Peter J. Holzer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Would it be possible to set (column constraint) and (table constraint) > >> in the normal body font instead of monospace? That would make it clearer > >> that these phrases aren't part of the syntax but descriptive. > > > Not sure, but I don’t like that as the sole solution anyway. Too subtle. > > Agreed, but we could/should do it along with modifying the text. > I thought your addition of "variant" was a good idea. > I didn't look closely at the rest of your diff. > > The apparent reason the entire row is monospace is because it's all within a <term> element inside a <varlistentry>. We'd probably have to put something around the <term> to make this work - I have no clue what if anything that might be. If someone knows the solution here, ok, but the wording change is more than enough to solve the problem (and this probably the only instance of this "problem" in the docs) so I don't intend to go diving down that rabbit hole. <varlistentry id="sql-createtable-parms-primary-key"> <term><literal>PRIMARY KEY</literal> (column constraint)</term> <term><literal>PRIMARY KEY...(table constraint)</term> Can't just move the </term> before the (... constraint) labels. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-03-02 23:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-03-02 18:36 Re: Documentation weirdness David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 18:42 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2026-03-02 23:27 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox