@@ -204,8 +204,8 @@ SELECT clean_emp();
204204
205205 <para>
206206 If an argument is of a composite type, then the dot notation,
207- e.g., <literal>argname. fieldname</literal> or
208- <literal>$1.fieldname</literal>, can be used to access attributes of the
207+ e.g., <literal><replaceable> argname</>.<replaceable> fieldname</> </literal> or
208+ <literal>$1.<replaceable> fieldname</> </literal>, can be used to access attributes of the
209209 argument. Again, you might need to qualify the argument's name with the
210210 function name to make the form with an argument name unambiguous.
211211 </para>
@@ -527,7 +527,8 @@ LINE 1: SELECT new_emp().name;
527527 Another option is to use
528528 functional notation for extracting an attribute. The simple way
529529 to explain this is that we can use the
530- notations <literal>attribute(table)</> and <literal>table.attribute</>
530+ notations <literal><replaceable>attribute</>(<replaceable>table</>)</>
531+ and <literal><replaceable>table</>.<replaceable>attribute</></>
531532 interchangeably.
532533
533534<screen>
@@ -1305,12 +1306,15 @@ CREATE FUNCTION test(smallint, double precision) RETURNS ...
13051306 <para>
13061307 A function that takes a single argument of a composite type should
13071308 generally not have the same name as any attribute (field) of that type.
1308- Recall that <literal>attribute(table)</literal> is considered equivalent
1309- to <literal>table.attribute</literal>. In the case that there is an
1309+ Recall that <literal><replaceable>attribute</>(<replaceable>table</>)</literal>
1310+ is considered equivalent
1311+ to <literal><replaceable>table</>.<replaceable>attribute</></literal>.
1312+ In the case that there is an
13101313 ambiguity between a function on a composite type and an attribute of
13111314 the composite type, the attribute will always be used. It is possible
13121315 to override that choice by schema-qualifying the function name
1313- (that is, <literal>schema.func(table)</literal>) but it's better to
1316+ (that is, <literal><replaceable>schema</>.<replaceable>func</>(<replaceable>table</>)
1317+ </literal>) but it's better to
13141318 avoid the problem by not choosing conflicting names.
13151319 </para>
13161320
@@ -2818,7 +2822,7 @@ HeapTuple heap_form_tuple(TupleDesc tupdesc, Datum *values, bool *isnull)
28182822HeapTuple BuildTupleFromCStrings(AttInMetadata *attinmeta, char **values)
28192823</programlisting>
28202824 to build a <structname>HeapTuple</> given user data
2821- in C string form. <literal >values</literal > is an array of C strings,
2825+ in C string form. <parameter >values</parameter > is an array of C strings,
28222826 one for each attribute of the return row. Each C string should be in
28232827 the form expected by the input function of the attribute data
28242828 type. In order to return a null value for one of the attributes,
0 commit comments