Re: [DOCS] ECPG, sentence not complete
Marc Cousin wrote: > > On 06/03/2011 08:30 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > > > >> I think it should be rewritten as following: > >> - > >> If the query returns more than one records, multiple linked > >> SQLDA structures are returned, and desc_next > >> holds a pointer to the next element (record) in the list. > >> - > > > > "more than one records" isn't right -- it could be "multiple > > records" or "more than one record". > > > > -Kevin > Hi, I've found another problem in ECPG's doc: > > > ECPG_INFORMIX_DATE_CONVERT > > > Functions return this value if Internally it is defined to -1210 > (the > Informix definition). > > > > > > ECPG_INFORMIX_OUT_OF_MEMORY > > > Functions return this value if Internally it is defined to -1211 > (the > Informix definition). > > > > > There are a few words missing. I have applied the attached patch to fix these cases, and clean up the wording a little. Thanks for the report. It is great you are translating the docs into French. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml index 9130b12..def250c 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml @@ -9281,7 +9281,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an overflow occurred in a -calculation. Internally it is defined to -1200 (the Informix +calculation. Internally it is defined as -1200 (the Informix definition). @@ -9292,7 +9292,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an underflow occurred in a calculation. -Internally it is defined to -1201 (the Informix definition). +Internally it is defined as -1201 (the Informix definition). @@ -9302,7 +9302,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an attempt to divide by zero is -observed. Internally it is defined to -1202 (the Informix definition). +observed. Internally it is defined as -1202 (the Informix definition). @@ -9312,7 +9312,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a bad value for a year was found while -parsing a date. Internally it is defined to -1204 (the Informix +parsing a date. Internally it is defined as -1204 (the Informix definition). @@ -9323,7 +9323,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a bad value for a month was found while -parsing a date. Internally it is defined to -1205 (the Informix +parsing a date. Internally it is defined as -1205 (the Informix definition). @@ -9334,7 +9334,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a bad value for a day was found while -parsing a date. Internally it is defined to -1206 (the Informix +parsing a date. Internally it is defined as -1206 (the Informix definition). @@ -9346,7 +9346,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a parsing routine needs a short date representation but did not get the date string in the right length. -Internally it is defined to -1209 (the Informix definition). +Internally it is defined as -1209 (the Informix definition). @@ -9356,7 +9356,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an error occurred during date -formatting. Internally it is defined to -1210 (the +formatting. Internally it is defined as -1210 (the Informix definition). @@ -9367,7 +9367,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if memory was exhausted during -their operation. Internally it is defined to -1211 (the +their operation. Internally it is defined as -1211 (the Informix definition). @@ -9379,7 +9379,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a parsing routine was supposed to get a format mask (like mmddyy) but not all fields were listed -correctly. Internally it is defined to -1212 (the Informix definition). +correctly. Internally it is defined as -1212 (the Informix definition). @@ -9392,7 +9392,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); t
Re: [DOCS] ECPG, sentence not complete
Marc Cousin wrote: > Sorry to give them as small batches like that. I've found 3 other ones > (the last ones I hope, as I've finished translating everything else from > the file). > Same problem as before, there are a few words missing. > > ECPG_INFORMIX_BAD_EXPONENT > > > Functions return this value if Internally it is defined to -1216 > (the > Informix definition). > > > > > > ECPG_INFORMIX_BAD_DATE > > > Functions return this value if Internally it is defined to -1218 > (the > Informix definition). > > > > > > ECPG_INFORMIX_EXTRA_CHARS > > > Functions return this value if Internally it is defined to -1264 > (the > Informix definition). > > > > Marc Sorry, these are the cases I fixed. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml index 9130b12..def250c 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ecpg.sgml @@ -9281,7 +9281,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an overflow occurred in a -calculation. Internally it is defined to -1200 (the Informix +calculation. Internally it is defined as -1200 (the Informix definition). @@ -9292,7 +9292,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an underflow occurred in a calculation. -Internally it is defined to -1201 (the Informix definition). +Internally it is defined as -1201 (the Informix definition). @@ -9302,7 +9302,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an attempt to divide by zero is -observed. Internally it is defined to -1202 (the Informix definition). +observed. Internally it is defined as -1202 (the Informix definition). @@ -9312,7 +9312,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a bad value for a year was found while -parsing a date. Internally it is defined to -1204 (the Informix +parsing a date. Internally it is defined as -1204 (the Informix definition). @@ -9323,7 +9323,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a bad value for a month was found while -parsing a date. Internally it is defined to -1205 (the Informix +parsing a date. Internally it is defined as -1205 (the Informix definition). @@ -9334,7 +9334,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a bad value for a day was found while -parsing a date. Internally it is defined to -1206 (the Informix +parsing a date. Internally it is defined as -1206 (the Informix definition). @@ -9346,7 +9346,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a parsing routine needs a short date representation but did not get the date string in the right length. -Internally it is defined to -1209 (the Informix definition). +Internally it is defined as -1209 (the Informix definition). @@ -9356,7 +9356,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if an error occurred during date -formatting. Internally it is defined to -1210 (the +formatting. Internally it is defined as -1210 (the Informix definition). @@ -9367,7 +9367,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if memory was exhausted during -their operation. Internally it is defined to -1211 (the +their operation. Internally it is defined as -1211 (the Informix definition). @@ -9379,7 +9379,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); Functions return this value if a parsing routine was supposed to get a format mask (like mmddyy) but not all fields were listed -correctly. Internally it is defined to -1212 (the Informix definition). +correctly. Internally it is defined as -1212 (the Informix definition). @@ -9392,7 +9392,7 @@ risnull(CINTTYPE, (char *) &i); the textual representation for a numeric value because it contains errors or if a routine cannot complete a calculation involving numeric variables because at least one of the numeric variables is invalid. -Internally it is defined to -1213 (the Informix definition). +Internally it is defined as -1213 (the Informix definition).
Re: [DOCS] CIDR address in pg_hba.conf
Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao writes: > > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/auth-pg-hba-conf.html > >> An IP address is specified in standard dotted decimal notation with > >> a CIDR mask length. The mask length indicates the number of > >> high-order bits of the client IP address that must match. Bits to the > >> right of this must be zero in the given IP address. > > > Is the last statement correct? When I specified the following setting > > in pg_hba.conf, I could not find any problem in PostgreSQL. > > > host all all 192.168.1.99/24 trust > > > As far as I read the code, those bits seem not to need to be zero. > > Attached patch just removes that statement. > > Even if it happens to work that way at the moment, do we want to > encourage people to depend on such an implementation artifact? > > IOW, if you read "must" as "if you want to trust it to work in future > versions, you must", the advice is perfectly sound. Should we use "should"? > >> right of this should be zero in the given IP address. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
