Обсуждение: [DOCS] intagg.sgml: example wrongly named and does not compile
Hi, I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the one-to-many table is a many-to-many. And my colleague Thibaut Madeleine has seen that the "CREATE TABLE right" and "CREATE TABLE left" examples cannot compile due to the reserved words. I propose the attached patch to fix that. Yours, -- Christophe Courtois Consultant Dalibo http://dalibo.com/ - http://dalibo.org/ -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Christophe Courtois <christophe.courtois@dalibo.com> writes:
> I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the
> one-to-many table is a many-to-many.
Well, it'd depend on how it was used. The example clearly intends that
it be one-to-many, and I'm not sure it still makes sense without that
restriction. Maybe better to add a unique constraint on
one_to_many(left)?
> And my colleague Thibaut Madeleine has seen that the "CREATE TABLE
> right" and "CREATE TABLE left" examples cannot compile due to the
> reserved words.
Ouch. Shows you how old this module is :-(
> I propose the attached patch to fix that.
Um, the attached file seems empty from here.
regards, tom lane
Le 21/04/2017 à 17:45, Tom Lane a écrit : > Christophe Courtois <christophe.courtois@dalibo.com> writes: >> I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the >> one-to-many table is a many-to-many. > Well, it'd depend on how it was used. The example clearly intends that > it be one-to-many, and I'm not sure it still makes sense without that > restriction. Maybe better to add a unique constraint on > one_to_many(left)? Perhaps the whole example can be simplified to get rid of the "left" table, but I didn't intend to rewrite it. >> And my colleague Thibaut Madeleine has seen that the "CREATE TABLE >> right" and "CREATE TABLE left" examples cannot compile due to the >> reserved words. > Ouch. Shows you how old this module is :-( Indeed. >> I propose the attached patch to fix that. > Um, the attached file seems empty from here. Ooops, sorry. It is attached. -- Christophe Courtois Consultant Dalibo http://dalibo.com/ - http://dalibo.org/
Вложения
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:07:13PM +0200, Christophe Courtois wrote: > Le 21/04/2017 à 17:45, Tom Lane a écrit : > > Christophe Courtois <christophe.courtois@dalibo.com> writes: > >> I've found out that the example in intagg.sgml is wrongly named: the > >> one-to-many table is a many-to-many. > > Well, it'd depend on how it was used. The example clearly intends that > > it be one-to-many, and I'm not sure it still makes sense without that > > restriction. Maybe better to add a unique constraint on > > one_to_many(left)? > > Perhaps the whole example can be simplified to get rid of the "left" > table, but I didn't intend to rewrite it. > > >> And my colleague Thibaut Madeleine has seen that the "CREATE TABLE > >> right" and "CREATE TABLE left" examples cannot compile due to the > >> reserved words. > > Ouch. Shows you how old this module is :-( > > Indeed. > > >> I propose the attached patch to fix that. > > Um, the attached file seems empty from here. > > Ooops, sorry. It is attached. I like this six year old patch so would like to apply it to master, attached. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
Вложения
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 22:27 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I like this six year old patch so would like to apply it to master, > attached. +1, since it is arguably a bug fix. Yours, Laurenz Albe
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:19:57AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 22:27 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I like this six year old patch so would like to apply it to master, > > attached. > > +1, since it is arguably a bug fix. Patch applied to master. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.