Re: [DOCS] FAQ corrections

2007-10-17 Thread Ian Barwick
On Wednesday 17 October 2007 00:02, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 15:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> > > On Friday 12 October 2007 14:04, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > attached some minor corrections, mainly completion of removal of
> > > > the  "relation with OID # does not exist" item, and some URL
> > > > corrections.
> > >
> > > I'm curious why this was removed. We still get this question a bit on
> > > irc and there aren't any more appropriate answers for any released
> > > version than what the FAQ contained...
> >
> > The FAQ will match the release it goes with or we could just delay its
> > removal until after 8.3 is in major circulation and say it only applies
> > to pre-8.3.
>
> I think it should remain, with an addition that this problem should be
> resolved as of PostgreSQL 8.3.  Hard to say exactly when, but I would think
> it would be at least untill 8.3 is released, and probably better would be 6
> months or so later, when (hopefully) people stop asking about this. IMHO.

Sounds sensible. (I removed it while going through checking for broken links 
etc., and the section numbering didn't match the contents; checking against 
CVS it appeared the intention of Revision 1.393 was to remove this item, cf.
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html#rev1.393
).

Attached is an updated FAQ patch which re-includes this item and a note that 
it's been resolved in 8.3.


Ian Barwick
Index: FAQ.html
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html,v
retrieving revision 1.395
diff -r1.395 FAQ.html
117,118c117,121
<  4.19) What replication solutions are available?
<  4.20) Why are my table and column names not
---
>  4.19) Why do I get "relation with OID #
> does not exist" errors when accessing temporary tables in PL/PgSQL
> functions?
>  4.20) What replication solutions are available?
>  4.21) Why are my table and column names no
1044c1047,1061
< 4.19) What replication solutions are available?
---
> 4.19) Why do I get "relation with OID #
> does not exist" errors when accessing temporary tables in PL/PgSQL
> functions?
> 
> PL/PgSQL caches function scripts, and an unfortunate side effect
> is that if a PL/PgSQL function accesses a temporary table, and that
> table is later dropped and recreated, and the function called again,
> the function will fail because the cached function contents still
> point to the old temporary table. The solution is to use
> EXECUTE for temporary table access in PL/PgSQL. This
> will cause the query to be reparsed every time.
> 
> This problem has been resolved in PostgreSQL 8.3.
> 
> 4.20) What replication solutions are available?
1066c1083
< 4.20) Why are my table and column names not
---
> 4.21) Why are my table and column names not

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [DOCS] FAQ corrections

2007-10-17 Thread Bruce Momjian

OK, item re-added.  Thanks.

---

Ian Barwick wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 October 2007 00:02, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 15:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Robert Treat wrote:
> > > > On Friday 12 October 2007 14:04, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > attached some minor corrections, mainly completion of removal of
> > > > > the  "relation with OID # does not exist" item, and some URL
> > > > > corrections.
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious why this was removed. We still get this question a bit on
> > > > irc and there aren't any more appropriate answers for any released
> > > > version than what the FAQ contained...
> > >
> > > The FAQ will match the release it goes with or we could just delay its
> > > removal until after 8.3 is in major circulation and say it only applies
> > > to pre-8.3.
> >
> > I think it should remain, with an addition that this problem should be
> > resolved as of PostgreSQL 8.3.  Hard to say exactly when, but I would think
> > it would be at least untill 8.3 is released, and probably better would be 6
> > months or so later, when (hopefully) people stop asking about this. IMHO.
> 
> Sounds sensible. (I removed it while going through checking for broken links 
> etc., and the section numbering didn't match the contents; checking against 
> CVS it appeared the intention of Revision 1.393 was to remove this item, cf.
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html#rev1.393
> ).
> 
> Attached is an updated FAQ patch which re-includes this item and a note that 
> it's been resolved in 8.3.
> 
> 
> Ian Barwick

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [DOCS] Tips needed for contrib doc

2007-10-17 Thread Albert Cervera i Areny
Given some of the problems I exposed earlier and the fact that the 
documentation of contrib modules isn't organized as a reference. I will be 
adding a new chapter to the "II. The SQL Language" part probably after "Full 
Text Search". This will also allow to have each module in one page as 
desired.

Objections?

A Dimecres 10 Octubre 2007, Albert Cervera i Areny va escriure:
> Hi,
>   I wanted to spend a week or so putting the contrib doc into shape so I
> want to start by moving the contrib part from a new appendix to the
> Reference part.

-- 
Albert Cervera i Areny
http://www.NaN-tic.com

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [DOCS] Tips needed for contrib doc

2007-10-17 Thread Tom Lane
Albert Cervera i Areny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given some of the problems I exposed earlier and the fact that the 
> documentation of contrib modules isn't organized as a reference. I will be 
> adding a new chapter to the "II. The SQL Language" part probably after "Full 
> Text Search". This will also allow to have each module in one page as 
> desired.

> Objections?

That seems like an entirely random place for it.

If you don't want to put it under Reference, maybe a new top-level Part
(probably after Reference) would be appropriate?

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings