Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> Perhaps a mention of this change could be made in the 8.4 release notes? > > And here's a patch for the 8.4 release notes. It seems odd to change our release notes after the fac

[DOCS] formula about the number of WAL files

Hi, 29.4. WAL Configuration There will always be at least one WAL segment file, and will normally not be more than (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1 or checkpoint_segments + wal_keep_segments + 1 files. The above formula is wrong. The

[DOCS] description of translate()

Hi all, I noticed that the existing description of the string translate() function currently has a description of: Any character in string that matches a character in the from set is replaced by the co

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >>> Perhaps a mention of this change could be made in the 8.4 release notes? >> >> And here's a patch for the 8.4 release not

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Brendan Jurd wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I have just set up HS+SR for the first time, and for the most part, >> the docs were excellent.  The one exception for me was the discussion >> of archive_cleanup_command.

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Josh Kupershmidt >>> wrote: Perhaps a mention of this change could be made in th

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On tor, 2010-10-14 at 08:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Still, I don't think it would be unreasonable to add a note to the > prior-release documentation saying - hey, these functions exist. They > are for internal use only, and do not exist in later versions. Don't > use 'em. Now, how many peopl

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The sets of intentionally documented and undocumented functions is part > of the API specification of a release, and we're not changing that after > the release, especially not when a future release ends up reverting the > change. Fair e

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On tor, 2010-10-14 at 08:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Still, I don't think it would be unreasonable to add a note to the >> prior-release documentation saying - hey, these functions exist. They >> are for internal use only, and do not exist in later versions. Don't

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

Josh Kupershmidt writes: > I'm curious now, though: are there any other functions which we're > leaving intentionally undocumented? Practically all the functions underlying operators are undocumented, eg int4pl(int, int). (If you consider IS NOT NULL to be an operator, then nonnullvalue is exact

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On ons, 2010-10-13 at 23:25 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > Would anyone favor instead back-patching the documentation for the > 8.3, 8.2, and 8.1 branches to include mentions of these > previously-undocumented functions, instead? In >

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

On 14 October 2010 08:45, Robert Haas wrote: > Is someone working on a patch? Yes, I will prepare a patch to get us started. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 02:24 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote: > I'll drop this onto the next open commitfest. If it passes muster, it > sure wouldn't hurt to backpatch it to 9.0. Committed. Not sure there's anything there worth backpatching? There aren't any doc bugs there. -- Simon Riggs

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

On 12 October 2010 23:28, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Brendan Jurd wrote: >> I have just set up HS+SR for the first time, and for the most part, >> the docs were excellent.  The one exception for me was the discussion >> of archive_cleanup_command.  This is a pretty impo

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 02:24 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote: > >> I'll drop this onto the next open commitfest.  If it passes muster, it >> sure wouldn't hurt to backpatch it to 9.0. > > Committed. Not sure there's anything there worth backpatching?

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2010-10-13 at 23:25 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> Would anyone favor instead back-patching the documentation for the >> 8.3, 8.2, and 8.1 branches to include mentions of these >> previously-undocumented functions, instead? In

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

On 15 October 2010 05:33, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 02:24 +1100, Brendan Jurd wrote: >> I'll drop this onto the next open commitfest.  If it passes muster, it >> sure wouldn't hurt to backpatch it to 9.0. > > Committed. Not sure there's anything there worth backpatching? There > a

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

Brendan Jurd writes: > Agreed that there are no doc bugs. The reason I suggested a backpatch > is that I'm concerned that a lot of people are going to be approaching > the whole Standby topic for the first time with 9.0, so it would be > nice to give those folks an accessible account of how > arc

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

Robert Haas writes: > I find the idea of things being intentionally undocumented quite > difficult. How is someone coming along supposed to know which things > are intentionally undocumented and which things are unintentionally > undocumented? They should assume the lack of documentation is inte

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I find the idea of things being intentionally undocumented quite >> difficult.  How is someone coming along supposed to know which things >> are intentionally undocumented and which things are unintentionally >> undocumente

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> They should assume the lack of documentation is intentional.  Six or >> seven years ago your argument might have held some water, but we've >> been quite rigorous about requiring externally-visible features to be >> documen

Re: [DOCS] Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> They should assume the lack of documentation is intentional.  Six or >>> seven years ago your argument might have held some water, but we've >>> been quite rigorous abou