On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 2:56 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:47 PM David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey! > > > > Lots of SQL/JSON threads going about. This one is less about technical > > correctness and more about usability of the documentation. Though in > > writing this I am finding some things that aren't quite clear. I'm going > > to come back with those on a follow-on post once I get a chance to make my > > second pass on this. But for the moment just opening it up to a content > > and structure review. > > > > Please focus on the text changes. It passes "check-docs" but I still need > > to work on layout and stuff in html (markup, some more links). > > > > Thanks! > > > > David J. > > > > p.s. v1 exists here (is just the idea of using basically variable names in > > the function signature and minimizing direct syntax in the table); > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwbYBvUZasGj_ZnfXhC2kk4AT%3DepwGkNd2%3DRMMVXkfTNMQ%40mail.gmail.com > > Thanks for writing the patch. I'll take a look at this next Monday.
I've attached a delta (0002) against your patch, wherein I've kept most of the structuring changes you've proposed, but made changes such as: * use tags consistently * use language matching the rest of func.sgml, IMO * avoid repetition (eg. context_item described both above and below the table) * correcting some factual discrepancies (eg. json_value never returns json null) * avoid forward references * capitalize function names, SQL keywords in examples as requested in a previous review [1] Maybe we could still polish this some more. -- Thanks, Amit Langote [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA-aLv7Dfy9BMrhUZ1skcg%3DOdqysWKzObS7XiDXdotJNF0E44Q%40mail.gmail.com
v2-0001-SQL-JSON-Improve-documentation-structure.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0002-Delta-against-David-J-s-patch.patch
Description: Binary data
