[trivial patch] typo in doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> wrote:

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml
index e45c258..ee0a255 100644
*** a/doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/sepgsql.sgml
*************** UPDATE t1 SET x = 2, y = md5sum(y) WHERE
*** 358,364 ****
 </synopsis>

     In this case we must have <literal>db_table:select</> in addition to
!     <literal>db_table:update</>, because <literal>t1.a</> is referenced
     within the <literal>WHERE</> clause.  Column-level permissions will also be
     checked for each referenced column.
    </para>
--- 358,364 ----
 </synopsis>

     In this case we must have <literal>db_table:select</> in addition to
!     <literal>db_table:update</>, because <literal>t1.z</> is referenced
     within the <literal>WHERE</> clause.  Column-level permissions will also be
     checked for each referenced column.
    </para>

Fixed, but note that I had to recreate the patch by manual
examination. Including it inline tends to garble things.

(It is unclear to me why the same example is cited twice here, but the
text around them is consistent with that.)

Fixed this too, and did some related rewording and proofreading.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Robert Haas 2012-02-15 <CA+TgmoZjUtSzHpXwwzcm4kJjwH__1AdMO3KoSbbQ+fHSCqpAKA@mail.gmail.com>

Fixed, but note that I had to recreate the patch by manual
examination. Including it inline tends to garble things.

Hmm, I thought I had :set paste and everything...

(It is unclear to me why the same example is cited twice here, but the
text around them is consistent with that.)

Fixed this too, and did some related rewording and proofreading.

Makes much more sense now. Thanks!

Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Excerpts from Christoph Berg's message of mié feb 15 12:16:52 -0300 2012:

Re: Robert Haas 2012-02-15 <CA+TgmoZjUtSzHpXwwzcm4kJjwH__1AdMO3KoSbbQ+fHSCqpAKA@mail.gmail.com>

Fixed, but note that I had to recreate the patch by manual
examination. Including it inline tends to garble things.

Hmm, I thought I had :set paste and everything...

If you copied from a pager, those tend to expand tabs to spaces, so the
patch gets mangled at that point. At least "less" does that. OTOH if
you :r the patch file, it works fine.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Excerpts from Christoph Berg's message of mié feb 15 12:16:52 -0300 2012:

Re: Robert Haas 2012-02-15 <CA+TgmoZjUtSzHpXwwzcm4kJjwH__1AdMO3KoSbbQ+fHSCqpAKA@mail.gmail.com>

Fixed, but note that I had to recreate the patch by manual
examination. Including it inline tends to garble things.

Hmm, I thought I had :set paste and everything...

If you copied from a pager, those tend to expand tabs to spaces, so the
patch gets mangled at that point.  At least "less" does that.  OTOH if
you :r the patch file, it works fine.

It is also possible that my email client is to blame. All I know for
sure is I had to regenerate the patch.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:

If you copied from a pager, those tend to expand tabs to spaces, so the
patch gets mangled at that point. At least "less" does that. OTOH if
you :r the patch file, it works fine.

You should be able to add an “inline” attachment too, and the receiver
should then be able to both see it inline in the email and store it as a
file. Tom uses inline attachments a lot, and apparently very few MUA
are allowing both features on that (gnus is perfectly fine here).

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support