| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tatsuro Yamada <yamada(dot)tatsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql |
| Date: | 2015-12-22 18:39:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20151222183943.GC839039@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Mind you, I don't think "inference specification" is very good
> >> terminology, but what's there right now is just wrong.
> >
> > It doesn't appear in the documentation. The term "inference
> > specification" only appears where it's necessary to precisely describe
> > the input to unique index inference.
>
> Well, we can change this to say "inference specification", but I still
> think calling it the "ON CONFLICT" clause would be clearer in this
> context.
TBH I'm kinda inclined to sort this out by removing all usage of the
word "inference" everywhere --- error messages and code comments and
documentation wording, and replace it with some other wording as
appropriate for each context.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-12-22 18:43:33 | Re: Possible marginally-incompatible change to array subscripting |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-22 18:32:38 | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |