On tis, 2011-07-26 at 09:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt > <schmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master > updated. > > I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and > > COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say "table" when they really > > mean "table or view", but maybe trying to differentiate between > > "table", "table_or_view", and "relation" will make things overly > > complicated. > > I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did > here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched > to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into > a form you don't like.
I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to word-smith details like this, "relation" doesn't carry any additional meaning. PG hackers know that internally, a "relation" is a table, view, index, sequence, etc., but for the user, it doesn't mean anything. Note that we don't use relation_name anywhere else in SQL command synopses. So far, no one has complained that we don't mention that views are allowed in the SELECT command or the GRANT command. I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below that a table_name also includes views (or whatever). As a side note, backpatching this creates additional translation work in backbranches. So please keep it to a minimum if it's not outright wrong. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
