Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=rs6gTkn47msLeP6bbX+erpOfThFAkEg8GFjZR@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> On tor, 2010-10-14 at 19:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Part of the problem, I think, is that people don't necessarily find >>> this stuff via the documentation. They fire up psql or pgAdmin and >>> start typing backslash commands. They see something good, so they use >>> it. How are they to know it's undocumented? > >> This could possibly be addressed if we more diligently maintained the >> system catalogs comments, and then possibly default the comments of >> undocumented objects to "internal object, don't use". > > I thought about this a bit more last night. It's certainly true that > a lot of "internal" functions have comments that don't suggest that > they're not meant to be used directly. What I think would be a good > plan for functions that underlie operators is that we move any useful > comments from pg_proc to pg_operator, and then install a comment in > pg_proc that says "implementation of operator +" (or whatever the > operator name is). This will not only let people know that they should > use an operator instead, but which one to use, when they find the > function via \df. > > I believe that there are a few cases where we document both the operator > and the equivalent function, so in those cases both should have the > regular comment. > > The same sort of approach could be used for functions that are meant as > aggregate support, if they don't have any real stand-alone use. I think > most of the other categories of support functions are already pretty > obviously internal, if there even are any that don't have "internal" > arguments. > > If that sounds like a reasonable plan, I'm willing to have a go at it > after the commitfest closes. It's a reasonable plan, but I'm not sure it's going to do a whole lot of good in practice. I use \df all the time but \df+ not too often. I'm halfway tempted to propose that we add a prosupersekret column that can be set on things we don't intend users to make use of directly, and then hide them even from \dfS and \df <pattern>. But I suspect you'll all just laugh at me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: