libpq documentation cleanups (repost 3)

The attached patch is a collection of libpq documentation cleanups
recommended in a list of changes emailed to me by Leslie S Satenstein.

Leslie found a number of places our libpq documentation that were unclear
or awkward, and this diff generated by me attempts to address them.

I have already updated the documentation proofreading wiki:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Documentation_Proofreading

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> The attached patch is a collection of libpq documentation cleanups
> recommended in a list of changes emailed to me by Leslie S Satenstein.
>
> Leslie found a number of places our libpq documentation that were unclear
> or awkward, and this diff generated by me attempts to address them.
>
> I have already updated the documentation proofreading wiki:
>
>        http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Documentation_Proofreading

I don't think changing "see below" to "refer below" or "call" to
"execute" is an improvement; even if we did that uniformly throughout
our documentation, surely future editors are going to reuse those
phrasings.

A lot of these other changes look pretty dubious too, although some
seem worthwhile.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

2011/1/12 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>

> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > The attached patch is a collection of libpq documentation cleanups
> > recommended in a list of changes emailed to me by Leslie S Satenstein.
> >
> > Leslie found a number of places our libpq documentation that were unclear
> > or awkward, and this diff generated by me attempts to address them.
> >
> > I have already updated the documentation proofreading wiki:
> >
> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Documentation_Proofreading
>
> I don't think changing "see below" to "refer below" or "call" to
> "execute" is an improvement; even if we did that uniformly throughout
> our documentation, surely future editors are going to reuse those
> phrasings.
>
> A lot of these other changes look pretty dubious too, although some
> seem worthwhile.
>
I propose to change "backend server" to "backend" or "server.
Robert, you mentioned that "backend server" phrase is suggest
interchangeability of "backend" or "server" but there is no term
"backend server".

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
// Dmitriy.

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > The attached patch is a collection of libpq documentation cleanups
> > recommended in a list of changes emailed to me by Leslie S Satenstein.
> >
> > Leslie found a number of places our libpq documentation that were unclear
> > or awkward, and this diff generated by me attempts to address them.
> >
> > I have already updated the documentation proofreading wiki:
> >
> > ? ? ? ?http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Documentation_Proofreading
>
> I don't think changing "see below" to "refer below" or "call" to
> "execute" is an improvement; even if we did that uniformly throughout
> our documentation, surely future editors are going to reuse those
> phrasings.
>
> A lot of these other changes look pretty dubious too, although some
> seem worthwhile.

OK, that last part seems kind of vague. ;-) Can you hack up the diff
to have just the changes you think are worthwhile? You can just remove
the parts of the diff you don't like.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > > The attached patch is a collection of libpq documentation cleanups
> > > recommended in a list of changes emailed to me by Leslie S Satenstein.
> > >
> > > Leslie found a number of places our libpq documentation that were unclear
> > > or awkward, and this diff generated by me attempts to address them.
> > >
> > > I have already updated the documentation proofreading wiki:
> > >
> > > ? ? ? ?http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Documentation_Proofreading
> >
> > I don't think changing "see below" to "refer below" or "call" to
> > "execute" is an improvement; even if we did that uniformly throughout
> > our documentation, surely future editors are going to reuse those
> > phrasings.
> >
> > A lot of these other changes look pretty dubious too, although some
> > seem worthwhile.
>
> OK, that last part seems kind of vague. ;-) Can you hack up the diff
> to have just the changes you think are worthwhile? You can just remove
> the parts of the diff you don't like.

Robert, here is a unified diff, which I think it easier to review for
single-line documention changes.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> OK, that last part seems kind of vague.  ;-)  Can you hack up the diff
>> to have just the changes you think are worthwhile?  You can just remove
>> the parts of the diff you don't like.
>
> Robert, here is a unified diff, which I think it easier to review for
> single-line documention changes.

Here are the parts that seem like improvements to me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On ons, 2011-01-12 at 12:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > The attached patch is a collection of libpq documentation cleanups
> > recommended in a list of changes emailed to me by Leslie S Satenstein.
> >
> > Leslie found a number of places our libpq documentation that were unclear
> > or awkward, and this diff generated by me attempts to address them.
> >
> > I have already updated the documentation proofreading wiki:
> >
> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Documentation_Proofreading
>
> I don't think changing "see below" to "refer below" or "call" to
> "execute" is an improvement; even if we did that uniformly throughout
> our documentation, surely future editors are going to reuse those
> phrasings.

Agreed.

> A lot of these other changes look pretty dubious too, although some
> seem worthwhile.

Agreed. :-/

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> OK, that last part seems kind of vague. ?;-) ?Can you hack up the diff
> >> to have just the changes you think are worthwhile? ?You can just remove
> >> the parts of the diff you don't like.
> >
> > Robert, here is a unified diff, which I think it easier to review for
> > single-line documention changes.
>
> Here are the parts that seem like improvements to me.

Applied.

I am also attaching a few more of Leslie's changes that I think are
useful. The first clarifies a confusion Leslie had about the fact that
"return" is referencing the return value of the function and not the
value returned in the pointer.

The second change is, I think, better wording.

The third moves the "deprecated" text to the start of the function
description. Leslie pointed out that that is how we do it for other
libpq functions, so we should move it for consistency.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I am also attaching a few more of Leslie's changes that I think are
> useful.  The first clarifies a confusion Leslie had about the fact that
> "return" is referencing the return value of the function and not the
> value returned in the pointer.

Hmm. Well, if that's the confusion, I don't think inserting the words
"by the function" is the right way to fix it - it certainly isn't
returned by anything else. You could change it to say "It is also
possible for *errmsg to be NULL even when the return value is also
NULL; this indicates..."

> The second change is, I think, better wording.

OK.

> The third moves the "deprecated" text to the start of the function
> description.  Leslie pointed out that that is how we do it for other
> libpq functions, so we should move it for consistency.

That seems to me to read pretty awkwardly. You could perhaps strike
the chunk and the whole first paragraph and simply write "PQoidStatus
is an older, deprecated version of PQoidValue. It returns its result
as a character string rather than an Oid, and is not thread-safe." and
then cut directly to the synopsis. That would be consistent with what
we've done elsewhere; moving just that one sentence is not.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I am also attaching a few more of Leslie's changes that I think are
> > useful. ?The first clarifies a confusion Leslie had about the fact that
> > "return" is referencing the return value of the function and not the
> > value returned in the pointer.
>
> Hmm. Well, if that's the confusion, I don't think inserting the words
> "by the function" is the right way to fix it - it certainly isn't
> returned by anything else. You could change it to say "It is also
> possible for *errmsg to be NULL even when the return value is also
> NULL; this indicates..."
>
> > The second change is, I think, better wording.
>
> OK.
>
> > The third moves the "deprecated" text to the start of the function
> > description. ?Leslie pointed out that that is how we do it for other
> > libpq functions, so we should move it for consistency.
>
> That seems to me to read pretty awkwardly. You could perhaps strike
> the chunk and the whole first paragraph and simply write "PQoidStatus
> is an older, deprecated version of PQoidValue. It returns its result
> as a character string rather than an Oid, and is not thread-safe." and
> then cut directly to the synopsis. That would be consistent with what
> we've done elsewhere; moving just that one sentence is not.

OK, I have made the adjustments you mentioned with my own wording
(attached and applied). Let me know of any more needed adjustments.
Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +