From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Q: documentation bug ?
In-reply-to: <20160204110532.GG22591@hermes.hilbert.loc>
References: <20160204105318.GD22591@hermes.hilbert.loc>
 <56B32F5D.5090009@2ndquadrant.fr> <20160204110532.GG22591@hermes.hilbert.loc>
Comments: In-reply-to Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>
 message dated "Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:05:32 +0100"
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:01:19 -0500
Message-ID: <17541.1454601679@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:00:45PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> REINDEX [ ( { VERBOSE } [, ...] ) ] { INDEX | TABLE | SCHEMA | DATABASE | SYSTEM } name

>>> Does this constitute a bug in the documentation or in the Debian version of PG ?

>> Neither.  It's a little bit obscure because {} and [] mean special
>> things, but () doesn't.

> Eagle-eyed !

Seems to me the syntax BNF here is bringing the problem on itself by using
{ ... } when in fact only one alternative is available.  I don't find
{ FOO | BAR } especially hard to read, but { FOO } is confusing because
you expect the {}'s to mean something and they really do not.

I'd be inclined to reduce this to

REINDEX [ ( VERBOSE ) ] { INDEX | TABLE | SCHEMA | DATABASE | SYSTEM } name

We can put back the extra decoration when and if a second option arrives.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql