[DOCS] Clarification in create_function.sgml

2003-10-21 Thread Oliver Elphick
It is necessary for single quotes and backslashes in a function
definition to be escaped, but the reference page does not make this
clear. 

diff -c -r1.52 create_function.sgml
*** create_function.sgml11 Sep 2003 21:42:20 -  1.52
--- create_function.sgml21 Oct 2003 10:10:08 -
***
*** 252,257 
--- 252,261 
 language.  It may be an internal function name, the path to an
 object file, an SQL command, or text in a procedural language.

+   
+Any single quotes or backslashes in the function definition must be
+escaped by doubling them.
+   
   
  

-- 
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
 
 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things 
  which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right 
  hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not 
  on things on the earth."  Colossians 3:1,2


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [DOCS] Clarification in create_function.sgml

2003-10-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Oliver Elphick writes:

> It is necessary for single quotes and backslashes in a function
> definition to be escaped, but the reference page does not make this
> clear.

This ought to be implicit in it being a string literal.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---(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


Re: [DOCS] Clarification in create_function.sgml

2003-10-21 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 17:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Oliver Elphick writes:
> 
> > It is necessary for single quotes and backslashes in a function
> > definition to be escaped, but the reference page does not make this
> > clear.
> 
> This ought to be implicit in it being a string literal.

Yes, but people sometimes need to have things spelt out.

It took a fairly lengthy correspondence to convince one bug reporter
that there was no bug; spelling it out for him in the reference would
have helped.

-- 
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
 
 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things 
  which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right 
  hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not 
  on things on the earth."  Colossians 3:1,2


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [DOCS] Clarification in create_function.sgml

2003-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oliver Elphick writes:
>> It is necessary for single quotes and backslashes in a function
>> definition to be escaped, but the reference page does not make this
>> clear.

> This ought to be implicit in it being a string literal.

It is mentioned in many places, but not on that particular page.

I don't have a problem with adding something there too, but I think it
ought to go in the NOTES section rather than where Oliver has put it.
We commonly have "Don't forget that ..." kinds of items in NOTES.

regards, tom lane

---(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


Re: [DOCS] Clarification in create_function.sgml

2003-10-21 Thread Josh Berkus
Oliver, Peter,

> It took a fairly lengthy correspondence to convince one bug reporter
> that there was no bug; spelling it out for him in the reference would
> have helped.

+1; we need things spelled out.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


[DOCS] Where's the line between "extension" and "development"?

2003-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
I am thinking about moving chapter 34 (Index Cost Estimation Functions)
and section 33.9 (Procedural Language Handlers) out of Part V (Server
Programming) and into Part VII (Internals), on the grounds that
they are only of interest to hard-core developers.  The other stuff in
Server Programming is of use to mere mortals who just want to get
their work done, but these sections don't seem to be addressing the
same audience.  In particular it seems weird that documentation on how
to write a new procedural language comes before any of the documentation
on how to use the existing PLs.

I'm also inclined to push chapters 36 (Triggers) and 37 (SPI) to the end
of Part V, after the chapters on procedural languages, because these
two chapters are only of interest to authors of C-language functions.
This would help maintain the general structure of the part: simpler,
easier-to-use stuff before advanced stuff.

Comments?

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly