Thread: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

"IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

From
PG Doc comments form
Date:
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/functions-xml.html
Description:

From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.

Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

From
Euler Taveira
Date:
2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>:
> From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
> in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
> however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
>
It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.


-- 
   Euler Taveira                                   Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/
   PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento

Attachment

Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:56:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> 2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>:
> > From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
> > in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
> > however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
> >
> It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
> documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
> Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
> patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
> item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.
> 

Patch applied and backpatched to Postgres 10.  Thank.s

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +


Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 3/30/18 10:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:56:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> 2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>:
>>> From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
>>> in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
>>> however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
>>>
>> It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
>> documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
>> Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
>> patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
>> item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.
>>
> 
> Patch applied and backpatched to Postgres 10.  Thank.s

Per the nearby discussion, this should probably also be backpatched further.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


Re: "IS NOT DOCUMENT" is missing

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
On Mon, Apr  2, 2018 at 11:51:50AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/30/18 10:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:56:32AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> >> 2018-03-09 0:10 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>:
> >>> From testing, it seems like PostgreSQL supports the syntax "IS NOT DOCUMENT"
> >>> in addition to "IS DOCUMENT", similar to "IS NOT NULL", "IS NOT FALSE", etc,
> >>> however this does not appear to be documented, only "IS DOCUMENT" is.
> >>>
> >> It has been like that since day 1. I'm not sure why it was not
> >> documented. It already has some tests. I'll bet that was an oversight.
> >> Should we repeat the statement in another item (like the attached
> >> patch)? Another option is to add a statement in the "IS DOCUMENT"
> >> item. I'm afraid that NULL return wouldn't be clear.
> >>
> > 
> > Patch applied and backpatched to Postgres 10.  Thank.s
> 
> Per the nearby discussion, this should probably also be backpatched further.

OK, backpatched through 9.3.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +