documentation typo

Started by PG Bug reporting formabout 4 years ago6 messagesdocs
Jump to latest
#1PG Bug reporting form
noreply@postgresql.org

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/lo-interfaces.html
Description:

I assume "inv_oid = lo_creat(conn, INV_READ|INV_WRITE);" should be "inv_oid
= lo_create(conn, INV_READ|INV_WRITE);", right?
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/lo-interfaces.html#LO-CREATE

#2Magnus Hagander
magnus@hagander.net
In reply to: PG Bug reporting form (#1)
Re: documentation typo

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:39 PM PG Doc comments form
<noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/lo-interfaces.html
Description:

I assume "inv_oid = lo_creat(conn, INV_READ|INV_WRITE);" should be "inv_oid
= lo_create(conn, INV_READ|INV_WRITE);", right?
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/lo-interfaces.html#LO-CREATE

lo_creat() and lo_create() are two different functions. They do the
same thing but take different parameters.

It might be worth splitting that part into one section with the
current function (lo_create) and then a separate section with the
backwards-compatible lo_creat function though -- I can see how it's
easy to come to the conclusion you did from reading it, and that could
be made a lot more clear.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Magnus Hagander (#2)
Re: documentation typo

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:

It might be worth splitting that part into one section with the
current function (lo_create) and then a separate section with the
backwards-compatible lo_creat function though -- I can see how it's
easy to come to the conclusion you did from reading it, and that could
be made a lot more clear.

I dunno, the section already makes it perfectly clear that there
are two functions. I could get behind documenting the more modern
one first, though.

I wonder if it's time to remove the references to PG 8.1?

regards, tom lane

#4Daniel Gustafsson
daniel@yesql.se
In reply to: Tom Lane (#3)
Re: documentation typo

On 30 Jan 2022, at 16:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

I could get behind documenting the more modern
one first, though.

+1

I wonder if it's time to remove the references to PG 8.1?

I think it's time to remove references to 8.0 and 8.1 to de-clutter the page,
8.3 or 8.4 seems like a better lower limit to keep.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/

#5Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Daniel Gustafsson (#4)
Re: documentation typo

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

On 30 Jan 2022, at 16:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I could get behind documenting the more modern
one first, though.

+1

Proposed patch attached.

I wonder if it's time to remove the references to PG 8.1?

I think it's time to remove references to 8.0 and 8.1 to de-clutter the page,
8.3 or 8.4 seems like a better lower limit to keep.

It's hard to explain why lo_creat is there at all without mentioning
8.1, so I ended up with the below, which basically says that lo_creat
is only useful for talking to pre-8.1 servers. Comments?

regards, tom lane

Attachments:

rearrange-lo-create-docs.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-ascii; name=rearrange-lo-create-docs.patchDownload+27-25
#6Daniel Gustafsson
daniel@yesql.se
In reply to: Tom Lane (#5)
Re: documentation typo

On 31 Jan 2022, at 23:05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

It's hard to explain why lo_creat is there at all without mentioning
8.1, so I ended up with the below, which basically says that lo_creat
is only useful for talking to pre-8.1 servers.

Agreed, makes sense.

Comments?

LGTM.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/