David Fetter wrote:

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:42:56AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Neil Conway wrote:

On 5-May-04, at 2:26 AM, David Fetter wrote:

Here it is :)

Looks good for the most part. A few minor quibbles / suggestions:

- Where an example uses double-quotes in a function body, we ought
to change the example to use dollar quoting -- but if no
doubled-quotes are used, I think it's better to just stick with
single quotes. You've needlessly converted a few function bodies
to use dollar quotes in violation of this principle -- please
revert them

I disagree. I think swiching between single quote and $$ based on
the content is just too confusing. I would just use $$ in all cases
unless $$ appears in the function (which should be rare), in which
case I would use $quote$ or something generic. I am also not a fan
of using $something$ that varies based on the type of function.

You folks have commit privs, so please settle on something.

Here's $.01 worth:

It ought to be pretty clear in each example that the stuff between the
$'s can be varied.

Another $.01:

Examples are in distressingly short and cloudy supply across
PostgreSQL docs.  This appears to reflect the Greek tradition of
inquiry, as opposed (in this case) to the Babylonian one Richard
Feynman advocated, cf.  <http://www.jefallbright.net/node/view/2062>.

I am doing what I can to correct this deficiency, and encourage others
to join me in this effort.

OK, that's my $.02 :)

My own style, taken from what I use in heredocs, would indicate the kind of thing enclosed. It's a matter of taste, but I think that style could help make the examples clearer, expecially as it is most useful when we have deeply nested stuff.

BTW, my thanks to David for having undertaken the task of doing this docco.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to