Thread: Add link to current_schemas in config.sgml
Hi folks,
This is just a quick docs patch to add a link to the mention of the
current_schemas function from 18.10.1. Statement Behavior.
The function must be called with one boolean argument, the meaning of
which isn't clear until you read the description in 9.23.
I also removed the parentheses after the function name as this was a)
misleading the reader into thinking the function could be called
without arguments and b) inconsistent with the style for referring to
functions elsewhere in the chapter.
Cheers,
BJ
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
index 3981969..c0ba5a5 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
@@ -4485,10 +4485,11 @@ COPY postgres_log FROM
'/full/path/to/logfile.csv' WITH csv;
<para>
The current effective value of the search path can be examined
via the <acronym>SQL</acronym> function
- <function>current_schemas()</>. This is not quite the same as
- examining the value of <varname>search_path</varname>, since
- <function>current_schemas()</> shows how the items
- appearing in <varname>search_path</varname> were resolved.
+ <function>current_schemas</> (see <xref linkend="functions-info">).
+ This is not quite the same as examining the value of
+ <varname>search_path</varname>, since <function>current_schemas</>
+ shows how the items appearing in <varname>search_path</varname> were
+ resolved.
</para>
<para>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote: > This is just a quick docs patch to add a link to the mention of the > current_schemas function from 18.10.1. Statement Behavior. Your patch got mangled by my email client, but I committed what I believe to be the same change. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 June 2011 02:39, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is just a quick docs patch to add a link to the mention of the
>>> current_schemas function from 18.10.1. Statement Behavior.
>>
>> Your patch got mangled by my email client, but I committed what I
>> believe to be the same change.
>
> Thanks Robert, but I think you missed the other part of my posted
> patch, which was removing the trailing empty parens from the function
> name ("current_schema()" => "current_schema" in two places in that
> paragraph).
>
> The paragraph rationalising this, from my original post:
>
> --
> I also removed the parentheses after the function name as this was a)
> misleading the reader into thinking the function could be called
> without arguments and b) inconsistent with the style for referring to
> functions elsewhere in the chapter.
> --
>
> Was the exclusion deliberate?
Nope, though I believe you mean current_schemas, rather than
current_schema, which both exist and are different.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 June 2011 02:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 14 June 2011 02:39, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is just a quick docs patch to add a link to the mention of the
>>>>> current_schemas function from 18.10.1. Statement Behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Your patch got mangled by my email client, but I committed what I
>>>> believe to be the same change.
>>>
>>> Thanks Robert, but I think you missed the other part of my posted
>>> patch, which was removing the trailing empty parens from the function
>>> name ("current_schema()" => "current_schema" in two places in that
>>> paragraph).
>>>
> ...
>>> Was the exclusion deliberate?
>>
>> Nope, though I believe you mean current_schemas, rather than
>> current_schema, which both exist and are different.
>
> Indeed I do.
OK, done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 14 June 2011 02:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 June 2011 02:39, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is just a quick docs patch to add a link to the mention of the
>>>> current_schemas function from 18.10.1. Statement Behavior.
>>>
>>> Your patch got mangled by my email client, but I committed what I
>>> believe to be the same change.
>>
>> Thanks Robert, but I think you missed the other part of my posted
>> patch, which was removing the trailing empty parens from the function
>> name ("current_schema()" => "current_schema" in two places in that
>> paragraph).
>>
...
>> Was the exclusion deliberate?
>
> Nope, though I believe you mean current_schemas, rather than
> current_schema, which both exist and are different.
>
Indeed I do.
On 14 June 2011 02:39, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is just a quick docs patch to add a link to the mention of the
>> current_schemas function from 18.10.1. Statement Behavior.
>
> Your patch got mangled by my email client, but I committed what I
> believe to be the same change.
Thanks Robert, but I think you missed the other part of my posted
patch, which was removing the trailing empty parens from the function
name ("current_schema()" => "current_schema" in two places in that
paragraph).
The paragraph rationalising this, from my original post:
--
I also removed the parentheses after the function name as this was a)
misleading the reader into thinking the function could be called
without arguments and b) inconsistent with the style for referring to
functions elsewhere in the chapter.
--
Was the exclusion deliberate?
Cheers,
BJ