| From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Row vs. tuple |
| Date: | 2003-03-16 04:35:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20030316043528.GQ79234@perrin.int.nxad.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> > How about: s/(row|tuple)/record/
>
> We do need two different terms: eliminating the distinction between
> a row and a version of a row is not going to improve matters.
>
> I have nothing against the word "record", but it doesn't seem to
> help clarify this distinction ...
Well, if you want to get cognitive, "old record" likely carries a more
explicit and easy to understand mental picture than "old tuple" or
"version of a row." I guess the same phrasing could apply to tuple or
row, but record has historically seemed like the easiest term for
people to grasp.
(new|old)? (record|row|tuple)
It's not a one word zinger, but (new|old)? is just a description for
the entity that the mind has an understanding or conceptupal picture
of. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-17 19:44:06 | Re: FAQ link corrections, replacement to prev. patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-15 21:31:22 | Re: Row vs. tuple |