Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvk5-00078N-6n for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:52:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvk4-000266-29 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:52:28 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvk3-00025x-Os for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:52:27 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pMvk1-0001pp-Ni for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:52:27 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 30VIqLF01224867; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:52:21 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Clarify deleting comments and security labels in synopsis In-reply-to: <87pmauk27g.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org> References: <87sffqk4zp.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org> <1139370.1675186526@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87pmauk27g.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org> Comments: In-reply-to =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= message dated "Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:07:15 +0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1224865.1675191141.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:52:21 -0500 Message-ID: <1224866.1675191141@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Agreed; as-is, the syntax summary is not just confusing but outright >> wrong. >> >> I think we could go further and split the entry under Parameters >> to match: > Makes sense. Something like the attached v2? WFM, will push. regards, tom lane