| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends |
| Date: | 2010-10-14 19:09:45 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikXfVVpnaDptPZpmShokB3caP9xA0ewOzMqE0Q_@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On ons, 2010-10-13 at 23:25 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> Would anyone favor instead back-patching the documentation for the
>> 8.3, 8.2, and 8.1 branches to include mentions of these
>> previously-undocumented functions, instead? In
>> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2004-08/msg00015.php>, Tom
>> opined that they should be left undocumented, but I really don't agree
>> with that.
>
> The sets of intentionally documented and undocumented functions is part
> of the API specification of a release, and we're not changing that after
> the release, especially not when a future release ends up reverting the
> change.
I find the idea of things being intentionally undocumented quite
difficult. How is someone coming along supposed to know which things
are intentionally undocumented and which things are unintentionally
undocumented?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-14 22:05:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2010-10-14 18:51:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor |