Re: CREATE TABLE .. LIKE .. EXCLUDING documentation

From: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE .. LIKE .. EXCLUDING documentation
Date: 2018-06-29 07:14:15
Message-ID: 20180629161415.c0f4e574.nagata@sraoss.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:39:01 +0200
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:

> > On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:56, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:22:15 -0700
> > "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> ​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?
>
> I think this wording makes sense and is clear. Only found a small typo:
>
> + This is tipically used after <literal>INCLUDING ALL</literal>.
>
> s/tipically/typically/

Thanks a lot.

I updated the patch.

>
> cheers ./daniel

--
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>

Attachment Content-Type Size
doc_excluding_v3.patch text/x-diff 1.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo Nagata 2018-06-29 07:43:58 Re: Forbid referencing columns by names in ALTER INDEX ... SET STATISTICS
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-06-29 07:05:28 Re: partitioning - changing a slot's descriptor is expensive