Re: Inheritance mention

Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Pre-7.1 might indeed be old enough to cut, but how much are we really
> >> saving? Four sentences out of our current docs doesn't excite me ...
>
> > But since there's a doc set per version, it would make sense to stop
> > mentioning unsupported versions in the docs for supported versions,
> > no? Or is this a FAQ thing we're talking about?
>
> The problem is what to tell people to read if they want to transition
> from an unsupported version to a supported version.
>
> If we really wanted to save some space, we could cut all the release
> notes for pre-7.4 (soon pre-8.0) releases. But somehow that doesn't
> seem like a good idea. What it would mainly accomplish is to make it
> hard to find the old information when you wanted it.

It is not a question of documention bulk but the burden of having users
wade through a paragraph that is much more complex because of the 7.1
mention.

I have applied the attached patch to remove mention of the 7.1 behavior
in alter_table and select; I have kept the main documentation mentions
unchanged. I also still reference the sql_inheritance GUC variable,
where there are more details.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my original posting; I never wanted to remove
all mentions, but rather retain mentions in logical locations.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +