From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, petermittere(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary |
Date: | 2025-07-14 17:40:35 |
Message-ID: | 702138.1752514835@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If we accept that we use the words statement and command interchangeably
> then the sole remaining use of command here sticks out because now we have
> to explain why commands are different from statements. I'd rather just
> remove the parenthetical. It's poorly clarifying a point that it seems you
> don't want to clarify more fully here.
[ shrug... ] I'm inclined to go back to the "command message" wording
then. I don't find "client-issued statement" to be helpful at all;
in particular, it's flat wrong for the multi-statement-query-message
case, because surely all those statements are client-issued. I'm okay
with this text leaving out nitpicky details, but it should leave the
reader with a mental model that more or less matches reality.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-07-14 17:45:58 | Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-07-14 17:31:41 | Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary |