Ancient comment in rules.sgml
There's a comment beginning with: in rules.sgml around line 2437. It seems this has been there since 2003. Do we need to keep this? Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
Incorect path
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/tutorial-sql-intro.html Description: At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/tutorial-sql-intro.html it is written: $ cd /src/tutorial $ make --- $ cd /tutorial $ psql -s mydb The four dots are not valid, either remove two of them or replace all four with proper path such as ../..
Re: Incorect path
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:25 AM PG Doc comments form wrote: > At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/tutorial-sql-intro.html it is > written: > $ cd /src/tutorial > The four dots are not valid, either remove two of them or replace all four > with proper path such as ../.. Your solutions are equally invalid even if they can be executed - likely with a different error than what you are seeing now. The current command is symbolic in nature since where in the local filesystem tree src/tutorial exists is unknown. If this is "fixed" at all, so that it is a valid and useful command, the change would be to simply make src/tutorial a relative path: cd src/tutorial I personally find no confusion with the existing code, which points out that the where you cd to requires being in the right initial location, but would accept a purely relative path. I would not accept randomly adding relative ancestor navigation since the only reason it is being suggested is due to misunderstanding the intent of the original. David J.
Re: Ancient comment in rules.sgml
Tatsuo Ishii writes: > There's a comment beginning with: > > in rules.sgml around line 2437. It seems this has been there since 2003. > Do we need to keep this? Well, the point is that the whole para after that is commented out. The para in question seems to have shown up in 20a071326, and at the time it began + +Another situation are cases on UPDATE where it depends on the +change of an attribute if an action should be performed or +not. In Postgres version 6.4, the +attribute specification for rule events is disabled (it will have +it's comeback latest in 6.5, maybe earlier +- stay tuned). So for now the only way to +create a rule as in the shoelace_log example is to do it with +a rule qualification. That results in an extra query that is +performed allways, even if the attribute of interest cannot I think it's a safe bet at this point that that feature isn't ever coming back, so I'd be good with ripping out the whole para. regards, tom lane
Re: Ancient comment in rules.sgml
> Tatsuo Ishii writes: >> There's a comment beginning with: >> >> in rules.sgml around line 2437. It seems this has been there since 2003. >> Do we need to keep this? > > Well, the point is that the whole para after that is commented out. Yes, so my question was we could safely remove the whole comment or not. > The para in question seems to have shown up in 20a071326, and > at the time it began > > + > +Another situation are cases on UPDATE where it depends on the > +change of an attribute if an action should be performed or > +not. In Postgres version 6.4, the > +attribute specification for rule events is disabled (it will have > +it's comeback latest in 6.5, maybe earlier > +- stay tuned). So for now the only way to > +create a rule as in the shoelace_log example is to do it with > +a rule qualification. That results in an extra query that is > +performed allways, even if the attribute of interest cannot > > I think it's a safe bet at this point that that feature isn't ever > coming back, so I'd be good with ripping out the whole para. Ok, I will remove the comment in all supported branches (after next moinor releases are out). Patch attached. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml index 3372b1ac2b..4e20664ea1 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml @@ -2434,30 +2434,6 @@ Nestloop in a command. - - - The summary is, rules will only be significantly slower than triggers if their actions result in large and badly qualified
Re: Ancient comment in rules.sgml
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:45:49AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> Tatsuo Ishii writes: >> I think it's a safe bet at this point that that feature isn't ever >> coming back, so I'd be good with ripping out the whole para. > > Ok, I will remove the comment in all supported branches (after next > minor releases are out). Patch attached. +1. Looks fine to me. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
