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 |
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 |