Re: Documentation improvement patch
| От | Daniel Gustafsson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Documentation improvement patch |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 84E4E3E6-D702-4604-AE0B-AF92B80B3833@yesql.se обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Documentation improvement patch (Oleg <o.sibiryakov@postgrespro.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Documentation improvement patch
|
| Список | pgsql-docs |
> On 13 Oct 2025, at 12:51, Oleg <o.sibiryakov@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > - <command>COPY</command> and other functions which allow executing a > + the <command>COPY</command> command and functions, which allow executing a > I'm not sure about these, I think we use COPY without the the "the COPY > command" decoration in many places so I think it's more consistent like this. > > I actually think we should add the decoration here because "<command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions" > sounds a bit confusing since COPY is not a file-access function and we seem to put it in the list. Even though I > agree that everybody knows COPY is a command, not a function. We refer to SQL commands by just their names all over the documentation without saying "an EXPLAIN command" etc, and I think this falls in that same category. > - to call functions defined in the standard internal library, by using an > + to call functions defined in the standard internal function library by using an > interface similar to their SQL signature. > Isn't it a bit redundant to say "internal function library" when we are already > talking about function definitions? > > I agree that it may seem redundant, I added "function" here for the sake of consistency with lines 1829/1830 (if appliedto the master branch) > where the documentation mentions "standard internal function library". I hadn't seen that, but with that in mind I agree that being consistent is good so I'll withdraw that comment. -- Daniel Gustafsson
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: