|From:||Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||"David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: CREATE TABLE .. LIKE .. EXCLUDING documentation|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:22:15 -0700
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
Thank you for your reviewing!
I attached the updated patch.
> > > On 27 Jun 2018, at 18:02, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > > I found that there isn't explanation about EXCLUDING in CREATE TABLE doc.
> > > Attached is a patch to add this. I would appreciate it if a native
> > English
> > > speaker comments on this.
> > + If <literal>EXCLUDING</literal> option <literal></literal> is
> > specified
> > The empty <literal></literal> seems wrong.
> > + after <literal>INCLUDING</literal> options, the specified thing is
> > excluded
> > “thing” sounds a bit vague here (and in the last sentence as well), but I’m
> > also not sure what to use instead. “referenced objects" perhaps?
> > +1 on documenting the EXCLUDING option though.
> "is excluded" and "not copied" are redundant to each other and the first
I removed "is excluded".
> sentence is basically redundant with the second.
> Maybe try something like:
> It is legal to specify the same option multiple times - e.g., "INCLUDING
> option EXCLUDING option" - the outcome is whichever comes last in the
> command (i.e., in the example, option is excluded).
Certainly. However, it seems to me that example is also redundant.
I rewrote this as follows:
It is legal to specify multiple options for the same kind of object.
If they conflict, latter options always override former options.
Does this make sense?
> David J.
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2018-06-29 05:59:36||Re: partitioning - changing a slot's descriptor is expensive|
|Previous Message||Amit Khandekar||2018-06-29 05:50:53||Re: partitioning - changing a slot's descriptor is expensive|