Server side lo-funcs name

Recently we got a complain about server side large object function
names described in the doc:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51B2413F.8010305@gmail.com

In the doc:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/lo-funcs.html

"There are server-side functions callable from SQL that correspond to
each of the client-side functions described above; indeed, for the
most part the client-side functions are simply interfaces to the
equivalent server-side functions"

From the description it is hard for users to find out server side
functions "loread" and "lowrite" becuase they are looking for
"lo_read" and "lo_write". So I think his complain is fair. Included
patches attempt to fix the problem.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> Recently we got a complain about server side large object function
> names described in the doc:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51B2413F.8010305@gmail.com
>
> In the doc:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/lo-funcs.html
>
> "There are server-side functions callable from SQL that correspond to
> each of the client-side functions described above; indeed, for the
> most part the client-side functions are simply interfaces to the
> equivalent server-side functions"
>
> From the description it is hard for users to find out server side
> functions "loread" and "lowrite" becuase they are looking for
> "lo_read" and "lo_write". So I think his complain is fair. Included
> patches attempt to fix the problem.

+ each of the client-side functions described above(please note

This line contains an obvious whitespace error, but more than that, I
think the resulting paragraph doesn't read very well this way. I
would suggest adding a new paragraph further down, maybe like this:

--- a/doc/src/sgml/lobj.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/lobj.sgml
@@ -572,6 +572,14 @@ SELECT lo_export(image.raster, '/tmp/motd') FROM image
The client-side functions do not require superuser privilege.
</para>

+ <para>
+ The functionality of <function>lo_read</function> and
+ <function>lo_write</function> is also available via server-side calls,
+ but the names of the server-side functions differ from the client side
+ interfaces in that they do not contain underscores. You must call
+ these functions as <function>loread</> and <function>lowrite</>.
+ </para>
+
</sect1>

<sect1 id="lo-examplesect">

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

> Recently we got a complain about server side large object function
> names described in the doc:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51B2413F.8010305@gmail.com
>
> In the doc:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/lo-funcs.html
>
> "There are server-side functions callable from SQL that correspond to
> each of the client-side functions described above; indeed, for the
> most part the client-side functions are simply interfaces to the
> equivalent server-side functions"
>
>>From the description it is hard for users to find out server side
> functions "loread" and "lowrite" becuase they are looking for
> "lo_read" and "lo_write". So I think his complain is fair. Included
> patches attempt to fix the problem.

I have committed this.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> Recently we got a complain about server side large object function
>> names described in the doc:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51B2413F.8010305@gmail.com
>>
>> In the doc:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/lo-funcs.html
>>
>> "There are server-side functions callable from SQL that correspond to
>> each of the client-side functions described above; indeed, for the
>> most part the client-side functions are simply interfaces to the
>> equivalent server-side functions"
>>
>>>From the description it is hard for users to find out server side
>> functions "loread" and "lowrite" becuase they are looking for
>> "lo_read" and "lo_write". So I think his complain is fair. Included
>> patches attempt to fix the problem.
>
> I have committed this.

Did you see my email with proposed alternative text? You didn't even
fix the whitespace error I pointed out.

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

> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Recently we got a complain about server side large object function
>>> names described in the doc:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51B2413F.8010305@gmail.com
>>>
>>> In the doc:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/lo-funcs.html
>>>
>>> "There are server-side functions callable from SQL that correspond to
>>> each of the client-side functions described above; indeed, for the
>>> most part the client-side functions are simply interfaces to the
>>> equivalent server-side functions"
>>>
>>>>From the description it is hard for users to find out server side
>>> functions "loread" and "lowrite" becuase they are looking for
>>> "lo_read" and "lo_write". So I think his complain is fair. Included
>>> patches attempt to fix the problem.
>>
>> I have committed this.
>
> Did you see my email with proposed alternative text? You didn't even
> fix the whitespace error I pointed out.

I don't know why but I haven't received your email. I just found the
email in the web archive and it looks better than what I proposed. Do
you want to commit it yourself?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> Did you see my email with proposed alternative text? You didn't even
>> fix the whitespace error I pointed out.
>
> I don't know why but I haven't received your email. I just found the
> email in the web archive and it looks better than what I proposed. Do
> you want to commit it yourself?

Done. Thanks.

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