From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improve routine vacuuming docs |
Date: | 2003-12-14 00:25:32 |
Message-ID: | 200312140125.32269.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote:
> Well, my reasoning was that the phrase "VACUUM", particularly when
> typeset as a command, has an exact technical meaning within the
> context of PostgreSQL.
The difference is that "VACUUM" is clearly meant to refer to the
command, and as such it is not a verb. So write "run [the command]
VACUUM" and you're on the safe side. That also saves you from creating
entities like "VACUUMing", which are beyond ugly.
> The presence of a for update trigger on the table [...]
>
> (To invent a random example) I think this is clearer:
>
> The presence of a <literal>FOR UPDATE</literal> trigger on the
> table [...]
This is OK, because in English you can use almost anything as an
adjective.
> However, I Am Not A Technical Writer, so I may be completely
> wrong. BTW, can anyone recommend a good book on technical writing in
> English?
I find that "The Chicago Manual of Style" has answered all my questions
so far. That's not targeted specially at technical writing, but it's
good allround information.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-12-14 00:38:17 | Re: bufmgr code cleanup (revised) |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-12-14 00:15:30 | Re: improve <varname/> markup |