Re: improve routine vacuuming docs

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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