ljb wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I think we should simply remove the description of *how* the escaping is
> > performed, and state only that the function produces a suitably escaped
> > literal string. Anything else is not future-proof, and could someday
> > break the way this wording di
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> ljb wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > I think we should simply remove the description of *how* the escaping is
> > > performed, and state only that the function produces a suitably escaped
> > > literal string. Anything else is not future-proof, and could someday
>
I have applied the attached patch to use SGML markup
consistently for GUC variables. Should we be using to link to
more GUC details in the docs? E.g., change:
standard_conforming_strings
to:
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I have applied the attached patch to use SGML markup
> consistently for GUC variables. Should we be using to link to
> more GUC details in the docs?
For the most part I think we do have enough links. In particular I do
*not* want to see multiple references to the same
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I have applied the attached patch to use SGML markup
> > consistently for GUC variables. Should we be using to link to
> > more GUC details in the docs?
>
> For the most part I think we do have enough links. In particular I do
> *not* want to see mu
Peter, based on feedback we have received, I think our users want our
docs header to look the same as our docs footer, i.e. few people see
the value of Fast Forward and Fast Backward, and they want "Up" to be in
the header. You seem to have done all the substantive changes to
stylesheet.dsl --- w
Hi all,
I just found "PL" is explained as "Programming Languages"
in the Acronyms section.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/acronyms.html
I think this should be "Procedural Languages" because
"Procedural" is used in the Server Programming section.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/cur
