Re: Bug in documentation: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/spi-examples.html
Curt Kolovson <ckolovson@gmail.com>
From: Curt Kolovson <ckolovson@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-07-18T02:45:24Z
Lists: pgsql-docs
I’d vote for showing both (with RETURNING and without), since without it the second argument to SPI_exec has no effect in this example, which may not be obvious. That seems to be one of the subtle points illustrated by this example. > On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 6:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think his point is that this example does not behave as the >>> documentation claims. Which it does not, according to my >>> tests here. I find this a bit disturbing --- did we intentionally >>> change the behavior of SPI_exec somewhere along the line? > >> Appears to be a documentation fix oversight back in v9.0 >> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/2ddc600f8f0252a0864e85d5cc1eeb3b9687d7e9 > > Ah, thanks for the pointer. I'd just been trying to bisect where > between 8.4 and 9.0 it changed, but failed because early-9.0 versions > don't build at all with current bison :-( > > Anyway, given that the example needs updating, how should we do that > exactly? Is it worth demonstrating both the behavior with RETURNING > and that without? If not, which one to show? > > regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Doc: fix out-of-date example of SPI usage.
- f9278cb0ae94 15.4 landed
- e6e451c1d7e5 16.0 landed
- df73e8bad6e4 11.21 landed
- dc2d9efcb47e 13.12 landed
- 2e9135b94093 14.9 landed
- 137b131d6fbd 17.0 landed
- 04911fa767fd 12.16 landed
-
Fix SPI documentation for new handling of ExecutorRun's count parameter.
- 2ddc600f8f02 9.3.0 cited