[DOCS] intagg.sgml: example wrongly named and does not compile

2017-04-21 Thread Christophe Courtois
Hi, I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the one-to-many table is a many-to-many. And my colleague Thibaut Madeleine has seen that the "CREATE TABLE right" and "CREATE TABLE left" examples cannot compile due to the reserved words. I propose the attached patch to fix t

Re: [DOCS] intagg.sgml: example wrongly named and does not compile

2017-04-21 Thread Tom Lane
Christophe Courtois writes: > I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the > one-to-many table is a many-to-many. Well, it'd depend on how it was used. The example clearly intends that it be one-to-many, and I'm not sure it still makes sense without that restriction. May

Re: [DOCS] intagg.sgml: example wrongly named and does not compile

2017-04-21 Thread Christophe Courtois
Le 21/04/2017 à 17:45, Tom Lane a écrit : > Christophe Courtois writes: >> I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the >> one-to-many table is a many-to-many. > Well, it'd depend on how it was used. The example clearly intends that > it be one-to-many, and I'm not sure it

Re: [DOCS] There is one "a" too much

2017-04-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 4/12/17 04:26, d...@dbi-services.com wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/0.0/static/logical-replication.html > Description: > > Logical replication of a table typically starts with a taking a snapshot Fixed, th

Re: [DOCS] Missing lock conflict for ROW SHARE

2017-04-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 4/12/17 06:00, diemersebast...@yahoo.fr wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/explicit-locking.html > Description: > > In my experience ROW SHARE conflicts with ROW EXCLUSIVE and this is not > mentioned

[DOCS] Small patch for the section "rules-views"

2017-04-21 Thread Zertrin
Hello, While reading the documentation I spotted a minor glitch in the section "rules-views" The reference at the bottom stating "That is the topic of the next section." is incorrect since the materialized views documentation got inserted between the section "rules-views" and "rules-update".

Re: [DOCS] Small patch for the section "rules-views"

2017-04-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 4/21/17 06:03, Zertrin wrote: > While reading the documentation I spotted a minor glitch in the section > "rules-views" > > The reference at the bottom stating "That is the topic of the next > section." is incorrect since the materialized views documentation got > inserted between the sectio