On 7 March 2011 23:30, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Thom Brown <[email protected]> writes: >> On 7 March 2011 20:49, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The reason those are phrased as "OID or name" is that what they take is >>> regclass, which means that things like pg_total_relation_size('table_name') >>> do in fact work. I think the proposed wording would leave people with >>> the idea that they had to supply a numeric OID, which is a PITA and not >>> by any means the expected usage. I agree that maybe the original >>> wording could use some improvement, but I don't think that just removing >>> "or name" is an improvement. > >> That's fair enough, but it still needs changing, as whilst an OID >> won't cause an error, a field with the type of name will. Is it >> reasonable to refer to a parameter as required to be of type regclass? > > Well, the table entries for those functions already show that the > parameter is of type regclass. I think the purpose of the text > descriptions is to help out people who might not immediately get the > implications of that. > > Maybe we could say "the name or OID of a table", or some such phrase, > so as to subtly avoid the expectation that what is being referred to > is the datatype named "name"?
Yes, that would remove the ambiguity. :) -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
