| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generate documentation keywords table automatically |
| Date: | 2019-04-29 18:45:05 |
| Message-ID: | fd3df804-bf09-2b08-264b-c4985d25ded1@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-04-27 17:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Would it make more sense to have just one source file per SQL standard
> version, and distinguish the keyword types by labels within the file?
The way I have written it, the lists can be compared directly with the
relevant standards by a human. Otherwise we'd need another level of
tooling to compose and verify those lists.
> A policy issue, independent of this mechanism, is how many different
> SQL spec versions we want to show in the table.
We had previously established that we want to show 92 and the latest
two. I don't propose to change that.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2019-04-29 19:19:02 | Re: generate documentation keywords table automatically |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-29 18:31:44 | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |