Re: Doc patch: replace 'salesmen' with 'salespeople'

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Doc patch: replace 'salesmen' with 'salespeople'
Date: 2022-03-24 20:40:11
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 24 Mar 2022, at 19:34, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> wrote:

> I just spotted an unnecessarily gendered example involving a 'salesmen'
> table in the UPDATE docs. Here's a patch that changes that to
> 'salespeople'.

No objections to changing that, it's AFAICT the sole such usage in the docs.

> Update contact names in an accounts table to match the currently assigned
> - salesmen:
> + salespeople:
> <programlisting>
> UPDATE accounts SET (contact_first_name, contact_last_name) =
> - (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salesmen
> - WHERE = accounts.sales_id);
> + (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salespeople
> + WHERE = accounts.sales_id);

This example is a bit confusing to me, it's joining on accounts.sales_id to get
the assigned salesperson, but in the example just above we are finding the
salesperson by joining on accounts.sales_person. Shouldn't this be using the
employees table to keep it consistent? (which also avoids the gendered issue
raised here) The same goes for the second example. Or am I missing something?

Daniel Gustafsson

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-03-24 20:59:58 Re: New Object Access Type hooks
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-03-24 20:34:35 Re: identifying unrecognized node type errors