On tis, 2011-07-26 at 09:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
> <schmiddy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master
> updated.
> > I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and
> > COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say "table" when they really
> > mean "table or view", but maybe trying to differentiate between
> > "table", "table_or_view", and "relation" will make things overly
> > complicated.
>
> I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
> here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched
> to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into
> a form you don't like.
I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to word-smith
details like this, "relation" doesn't carry any additional meaning. PG
hackers know that internally, a "relation" is a table, view, index,
sequence, etc., but for the user, it doesn't mean anything.
Note that we don't use relation_name anywhere else in SQL command
synopses. So far, no one has complained that we don't mention that
views are allowed in the SELECT command or the GRANT command.
I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below that
a table_name also includes views (or whatever).
As a side note, backpatching this creates additional translation work in
backbranches. So please keep it to a minimum if it's not outright
wrong.