Add optional SET keyword for create database clauses in Cypher 25 #2216
Conversation
|
This PR includes documentation updates Updated pages: |
| @@ -186,10 +262,14 @@ DROP [COMPOSITE] DATABASE name [IF EXISTS] [RESTRICT \| CASCADE ALIAS[ES]] [{DUM | |||
| [[administration-syntax-database-alias-management]] | |||
| == Database alias management command syntax | |||
|
|
|||
| [options="header", width="100%", cols="1,5a"] | |||
| The following tables cover both local and remote database aliases. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding is that it is only the very next table which cover both, after that it is separate tables for local and remote since there are some variations. So I think you either want to write just "The following table..." instead of "The following tables..." or clarify it a bit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's the general tables as in all of these tables together covers both? but that sentence came from @renetapopova so I'll let her decide if we want to update it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it better to just remove the both?
| The following tables cover both local and remote database aliases. | |
| The following tables cover local and remote database aliases. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No I do not think removing 'both' helps. I interpret this sentence as each of the following tables (unclear how many) covers both local and remote alias, which is not true. Some tables cover both, some cover local and some cover remote if I understand the layout of the page correctly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it is just me that interpret the sentence incorrectly, if you think it is correct already I am fine with leaving it. Same for my other comment which is about the same thing but in another place
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The following tables cover both local and remote database aliases. | |
| The following sections cover the commands related to local and remote database aliases. |
is that better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or feel free to come up with your own suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the sentence isn't supposed to talk about just the next one so changing to The following table isn't the way to go
Co-authored-by: Reneta Popova <reneta.popova@neo4j.com>
No description provided.