Re: Patch for CREATE RULE sgml -- Was in: [DOCS]

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Emanuel Calvo <emanuel(dot)calvo(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch for CREATE RULE sgml -- Was in: [DOCS]
Date: 2014-03-24 12:51:07
Message-ID: CAHGQGwE1TcWm1-4TyZKETa6sRc0YOZJ0BQ8TVDT2cJg46yP4GA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Emanuel Calvo
<emanuel(dot)calvo(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I realized that the output of the CREATE RULE has not a detailed
> output for the "events" parameter.
>
> But the question here is that I'm not sure which format follow:
>
> { INSERT | UPDATE | DELETE | SELECT}
>
> or
>
> INSERT
> UPDATE
> DELETE
> SELECT
> - --
>
>
> I attach a patch for each one.

Though I'm not sure the right policy of the format in synopsis, ISTM that
the following format is suitable in this case, i.e., if the value list
is very simple.
Patch attached.

SELECT | INSERT | UPDATE | DELETE

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

Attachment Content-Type Size
add_events_on_create_rule_fujii.patch text/x-patch 805 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Tolley 2014-03-24 15:17:26 Minor docs patch for pg_basebackup
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2014-03-24 10:55:08 Re: START_REPLICATION TIMELINE

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Swapnil Bhoite 2014-03-24 13:08:38 Command line argument for Server
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2014-03-24 11:59:08 Re: Global flag