Forgive my ignorance but... how does one submit a documentation patch? Same as a normal patch? (Just edit the rdoc stuff?) I'm not great with code patches but I'd have no issue patching docs where I thought there was an issue.
Had I read the article on text / char / varchar before last night, that would have been enough to make the switch! I've been completely happy with my limited exposure thus far too, so I'll keep with it. (My DB snob buddy has been helping too since he seems elated whenever anyone switches.) On May 14, 8:59 am, Jeremy Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 13, 7:42 pm, cult hero <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Haha. Sorry. The program I'm developing is for my own purposes and I > > really, really, really prefer the 1.9 syntax. The change in syntax was > > one of favorite changes in 1.9. So, since this isn't for public > > consumption, I thought it wouldn't hurt! > > For the record, the new hash syntax is one of the few 1.9 features I > think is an improvement. That being said, I don't think it is worth > breaking compatibility. > > > I don't think it needs to. But I presumed it did because the > > documentation for foreign_key: > > >http://sequel.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Sequel/Schema/Generator.html... > > > Says that the opts it accepts are the same as column: > > >http://sequel.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Sequel/Schema/Generator.html... > > > Trouble is, column doesn't take type as an option but as an argument. > > I should have checked the source code first but since I had it in my > > mind that it was being automagic in some way I didn't even think to. > > I can see where this can be the source of some confusion. If you can > think of a better way to phrase things, please send in a documentation > patch. > > > I'll read up on that. I'm actually very new to Postgres. I figured > > that while playing with 1.9 I'd also play with Postgres. I've been > > using MySQL for the most part over the last few years but the Oracle's > > acquisition of Sun and some of the politics of the project in its > > current state have me kind of "bleh" and one of my snobbier DB friends > > has been kicking for me to spend some time with it lately, so I am. > > > Do you have a preferred DB that you work on most of the time? > > PostgreSQL. Other than testing Sequel, I don't use MySQL for > anything, and I certainly steer people away from MySQL whenever I > can. PostgreSQL is better than MySQL in almost every way in terms of > features, and the areas where it isn't currently better (e.g. > replication, upgrading), it probably will be within a few releases. > MySQL used to be significantly faster for simple queries, but > PostgreSQL is much closer today, and for complex queries, PostgreSQL > will probably beat MySQL by a significant margin. I've always found > PostgreSQL easy to setup and PostgreSQL's documentation is great. > > Jeremy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
