| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Jakubowski <tom(at)crystae(dot)net>, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cities name column name inconsistent |
| Date: | 2021-06-24 11:24:01 |
| Message-ID: | 30cc267d-8799-1ea7-a628-7e4fa6967f26@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 14.06.21 18:29, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 12:48:25PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:28 PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/tutorial-fk.html
>> Description:
>>
>> In earlier sections of the tutorial, the cities table had a column called
>> 'name'. In this chapter, when creating the revised schema with foreign
>> keys,
>> the same column in the cities is now called 'city'.
>>
>>
>> You are correct. I don't see an urgent need to spend time figuring out
>> something different.
>
> I wrote the attached patch to improve this case.
The tutorial documentation is meant to be consistent with src/tutorial/,
which uses cities.name, so calling the column "city" was just plain
wrong in that respect.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-06-24 16:02:53 | Re: Has the Update savepoint example outlived its usefulness? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-06-24 11:20:07 | Re: Has the Update savepoint example outlived its usefulness? |