Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@gmx.de> writes:
> I agree that the example should be re-written. But I'm not sure if I need
> to have a paragraph about the old syntax. There are two reasons:
> - I haven't seen any other SQL command where an old syntax was
> documented
If we were deprecating the old syntax with intention to remove it, that
might be a defensible position, but I didn't think we were doing that.
IMHO both forms seriously do need to be documented so that people will
understand that the index/table order is different. Otherwise there'll
be enormous confusion.
> - I thought I could come away without writing doc. After all, I'm
> not a native english speaker. That's a point where I could need
> some help ... (maybe my english is good enought, but it's not
> worth to make a "take 4" to "take 17" patch just for english
> grammar, typos, subtle meanings, whatever.
Your English seems fine to me, certainly more than good enough to
produce first-draft documentation. Whoever reviews/commits it will
help out as needed.
>> Is the placement of opt_cluster_using completely arbitrary? I'm not very
>> familiar with the parser, it really looks like those type-definitions
>> are in random order.
> I thought so.
Yeah, it's just a mess :=(. Somebody might go through and sort them
into alphabetical order or something someday, but not today.
regards, tom lane
