On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 6:49 AM Aleksander Alekseev < aleksan...@timescale.com> wrote:
> Hi David, > > > It's basically a glorified cross-reference. I didn't dislike directing > the reader to the internals section enough to try and establish a better > location for the main content. > > One problem I see is that: > > + [..], but as there is no pre-existing data, visibility checks are > unnecessary. > > ... allows a wide variety of interpretations, most of which will be > wrong. And all in all I find an added paragraph somewhat cryptic. Yeah, I'd probably have to say "but since no existing record is being modified, visibility checks are unnecessary". Is there a specific mis-interpretation that first came to mind for you that I can consider specifically? > > If the goal is to add a cross-reference I suggest keeping it short, > something like "For additional details on various corner cases please > see ...". > > That does work, and I may end up there, but it feels unsatisfying to be so vague/general. David J.
