On 04.05.20 17:23, PG Doc comments form wrote:
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/catalogs-overview.html
Description:
The documentation for chapter 52 does not clearly identify the schema
associated with the system catalo
Fabien COELHO writes:
> My 0.02€: I'm wondering whether the description could/should match SQL
> syntax, eg:
>oid OID
>adrelid OID REFERENCES pg_class(oid)
>adnum INT2 REFERENCES pg_attribute(attnum)
>…
> Or maybe just uppercase type names, especially when repeated?
Meh. I'm n
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 07:06:55PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I see how that can be pretty useful for something that's as simple as
> asciidoc.
> But I wonder how useful it would be for our docbook documentation.
>
> There'd be no preview (which there i sin the elastic), and we know how
> di
=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= writes:
> The attached patch contains:
> - for "System Catalog": moving paragraphs from bottom of 51. to top of
> 51.1. (in PG 11 it is chapter 52); explanation that "System Catalog" is
> a synonym for a concrete schema and its tables.
> - for "Information Schema":
On 5/5/20 7:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a really quick-n-dirty prototype patch that just converts the
> pg_aggregate table to the proposed style, plus a screenshot for those
> who don't feel like actually building the docs with the patch.
Not opposed to building the docs, but the screenshot ex
Hello Tom,
oid OID
Meh. I'm not a fan of overuse of upper case --- it's well established
that that's harder to read than lower or mixed case. And it's definitely
project policy that type names are generally treated as identifiers not
keywords, even if some of them happen to be keywords
