From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH][DOC] Fix for PREPARE TRANSACTION doc and postgres_fdw message. |
Date: | 2019-11-08 00:10:04 |
Message-ID: | 20191108001004.GV1768@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:40:36PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:28 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> At Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:20:07 +0900, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
>>> Only two people complaining about the wording? Considering as well
That's like.. Half the folks participating to this thread ;)
>>> that we use that wording in the docs and there were no complains about
>>> that IIRC, I don't feel a need to change that, TBH.
>> But the most
>> significant point in the previous mail is using "foreign tables using
>> postgres_fdw" instead of "postgres_fdw foreign tables".
>
> OK, but as I said above, I don't feel the need to change that. How
> about leaving it for another patch to improve the wording in that
> message and/or the documentation if we really need to do it.
Fine by me. If I were to put a number on that, I would be around +-0,
so I don't have an actual objection with your point of view either.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-08 00:30:56 | Re: Add SQL function to show total block numbers in the relation |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-08 00:03:15 | Re: heapam_index_build_range_scan's anyvisible |