Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Documenting removal of nonnullvalue() and friends

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-14 22:05:48
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor
Previous:From: Brendan JurdDate: 2010-10-14 18:51:28
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Docs for archive_cleanup_command are poor

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group