Re: Wrong parameter names for make_interval (Postgres 13) - Mailing list pgsql-docs

po 5. 10. 2020 v 17:53 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> po 5. 10. 2020 v 15:56 odesílatel Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net> napsal:
>> So instead of
>> make_interval ( [ year int [, month int [, week int [, day int [, hour
>> int [, min int [, sec double precision ]]]]]]] )
>> it should be
>> make_interval ( [ years int [, months int [, weeks int [, days int
>> [,hours int [, mins int [, secs double precision ]]]]]]] )

Right, fixed.

> this syntax is not correct too
> It should be
>     make_interval( years int default 0, month int default 0, days int
> default 0, hours int default 0, secs double precision default 0)

IIRC, I intentionally changed that in v13; the existence of the defaults
is sufficiently covered by the text "... fields, each of which can default
to zero".  I think that was partly motivated by trying to get the function
signature to fit into limited space.  The final docs-table design we ended
up with might allow undoing it, but I don't see any real reason to.  The
other way is more verbose and not any clearer.

I don't understand,

the syntax [ a [, b]] means

so a and b are optional, but b can be used only when a is used. But for make_interval I can use "months" arguments without specification of "years" argument.

I don't know the correct BNF for arguments with default values, but using this doesn't look correct.

Regards

Pavel

I spent a little bit of time scanning for other discrepancies between
func.sgml and pg_proc.proargnames, and found several, mostly though
not exclusively in the JSON functions.  In these other cases, though,
I think there might be a good argument for making pg_proc fit the docs
not the other way around.  In the JSON functions, for example, pg_proc
randomly has some functions calling the main JSON[B] input "target"
while others call it "from_json" or "json_in".  I'm not real sure
which of those names is preferable, but inconsistency is not preferable.

                        regards, tom lane