On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 3:50 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
> On 6/13/21 5:18 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> >> "Expands an array into a set of rows. The array's elements are read out
> >> in storage order."
> >>
> >> If we tweaked the multirange "unnest" function, we could change it to:
> >>
> >> + <para>
> >> + Expands a multirange into a set of rows.
> >> + The ranges are read out in storage order (ascending).
> >> + </para>
> >>
> >> to match what the array "unnest" function docs, or
> >>
> >> + <para>
> >> + Expands a multirange into a set of rows that each
> >> + contain an individual range.
> >> + The ranges are read out in storage order (ascending).
> >> + </para>
> >>
> >> to be a bit more specific. However, I think this is also bordering on
> >> overengineering the text, given there has been a lack of feedback on the
> >> "unnest" array function description being confusing.
> >
> > I think it's not necessarily to say about rows here. Our
> > documentation already has already a number of examples, where we
> > describe set of returned values without speaking about rows including:
> > json_array_elements, json_array_elements_text, json_object_keys,
> > pg_listening_channels, pg_tablespace_databases...
>
> I do agree -- my main point was that I don't think we need to change
> anything. I proposed alternatives just to show some other ways of
> looking at it. But as I mentioned, at this point I think it's
> overengineering the text.
>
> If folks are good with the method + code, I think this is ready.
Cool, thank you for the summary. I'll wait for two days since I've
published the last revision of the patch [1] (comes tomorrow), and
push it if no new issues arise.
Links
1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvG%3DJR5kqmZx7KvTyVgtQePX0QJ09TO1y3sN73WOfJf1Q%40mail.gmail.com
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov