"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:06 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Why not do away with two separate functions and define a composite type
>>> (boolean, text) for is_valid to return?
>> I don't see any advantage to that. It would be harder to use in both
>> use-cases.
> I don't really see a use case for either of them individually.
Uh, several people opined that pg_input_is_valid would be of field
interest. If I thought these were only for testing purposes I wouldn't
be especially concerned about documenting them at all.
> Are you suggesting we should not go down the path that v8-0003 does in the
> monitoring section cleanup thread? I find the usability of Chapter 54
> System Views to be superior to these two run-on chapters and would rather
> we emulate it in both these places - for what is in the end very little
> additional effort, all mechanical in nature.
I have not been following that thread, and am not really excited about
putting in a huge amount of documentation work here. I'd just like 9.26
to have a mini-TOC at the page head, which <sect2>'s would be enough for.
regards, tom lane
