Re: Should the WAIT FOR command tag be "WAIT" or "WAIT FOR"? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Should the WAIT FOR command tag be "WAIT" or "WAIT FOR"?
Date
Msg-id 1591155.1787947900@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread
List pgsql-hackers
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> While reviewing a patch for the WAIT FOR command I noticed that its
> command tag is "WAIT" rather than "WAIT FOR". I could not find this
> discussed in the main thread, although I have not read all of them, so
> I might miss something. I want to confirm it because a command tag is
> not something we can revisit later when we release v19.0.

I think it's fine.  The FOR is a noise word that's useful only to
make the command's grammar vaguely resemble English.  For precedent,
consider INSERT, which must have INTO but that's not part of the
command tag.

> Strictly the same rule would argue for
> "WAIT FOR LSN", but "WAIT FOR" is the name the manual gives the
> command, and it leaves room if other things become waitable in the
> future.

If anything, I'd change the manual.  "WAIT FOR" is neither short
nor a useful description of what's being waited for.  Either "WAIT"
or "WAIT FOR LSN" would be more plausible as a page heading.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow table AMs to define their own reloptions
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stat_get_autovacuum_scores ignores the main table's reloptions for TOAST tables