I came to the comments to see the discussion and almost all of them are just complaining about LLM-assisted writing.

It's exhausting and tedious, like people nitpicking grammar.

It's also off-topic. I'd love it if HN banned (or strongly discouraged) this kind of repetitive low-value off-topic meta-discussion.

We get it, LLMs are used to write now. Some people don't like it. No need to broadcast that dislike every time, it adds noise to the discussion. :-(

(yes I realize I am also adding off-topic noise but this thread was nothing but that, so I guess I am on-topic until actual Postgres discussion starts).

▲ exceptione a day ago | parent | next [-]

  > complaining about LLM-assisted writing.

I urge you to read the article. "assisted" is doing a lot of load-bearing work here. The problem is not just the writing style, but rather that it doesn't make sense at all.

Take the example for PGQ. "Two ordinary tables, one graph on top of them:" The example makes zero sense, because the fucking tables aren't even there. You can't be lazier than writing a prompt: "please make a blog post about the new PostgreSQL release, and give code examples for each new feature", then ctrl-c, ctrl-v the output.

You can write articles with the most horrible style if you want, but this level of disdain for readers is beyond belief.

▲ valyala 19 hours ago | parent [-]

You can add the following statements in the first example and click "Run" button in order to understand the underlying tables' structure and contents mentioned in the example:

    SELECT * FROM person;

    SELECT * FROM follows;

You can explore the database used in this example with any valid PostgreSQL statements.

	▲	exceptione 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, that is better than I thought, can confirm it works.

▲ garenp a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I must say I was immensely entertained by reading "IBM stepped up with buildfarm animals". :)