Re: TABLE command

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TABLE command
Date: 2008-11-12 16:57:32
Message-ID: 491B0AFC.3070407@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Incidentally, I noticed while looking at this that "\h with" also
>> fails, even though WITH can now be the first word of a valid SQL
>> statement. I think we ought to patch psql to return the same help for
>> WITH as it does for SELECT.
>
> Hmm. Given the current infrastructure for \h, the only way to do that
> would be to make a separate ref page for WITH, which feels like the
> wrong thing.

There is a canonical solution for this with man pages, namely man page
links (those ".so" things in a man page that redirect to a different
one). In DocBook, you just list more than one refname in the refentry
to create this. I have committed a few bits of makefile to support
this. A bit more Perl hacking should also get psql up to speed. I
suggest we try if we like the results when WITH is linked to SELECT, and
then see about TABLE and whatever else.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Chernow 2008-11-12 17:09:11 Re: libpq-events windows gotcha
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2008-11-12 16:29:34 Re: [GENERAL] Very slow queries w/ NOT IN preparation (seems like a bug, test case)