В письме от 31 мая 2016 15:38:38 пользователь Robert Haas написал: > >>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for the > >>> reasons I mentioned before. > >> > >> I tend to agree with Nikolay. I can't see much upside in making this > >> change. At best, nothing will break. At worst, something will break. > >> But how do we actually come out ahead? > > > > We come out ahead by not having to make the documentation more confusing. > > > > Basically, we have the opportunity to fix an ancient mistake here at > > very low cost. I do not think that doubling down on the mistake is > > a better answer. > > I'm not convinced, but we don't have to agree on everything... I am not convinced too. But I will not argue hard for the patch as far as my main goal was to report inconsistency. Through the I consider Tom's proposal quite strange...
We've recently chosen to not document the "ANALYZE -> ANALYSE" syntax, and I'm sure there are other examples, so I don't see why the status quo (pre-Tom's patch) is unacceptable...if adding USING to the synopsis is prone to cause confusion then don't; but lets not break existing uses that in no way harm the project.
Otherwise I presume Tom is correct that the true fix is more than a single word in one file of our documentation. If you want to see it stay and be documented there needs to be a complete proposal that at least gets, even if grudging, approval from a couple of people and a committer.