|From:||Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>|
|To:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Subject:||Re: Doc patch: replace 'salesmen' with 'salespeople'|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> 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
> No objections to changing that, it's AFAICT the sole such usage in the docs.
There's a mention of the travelling salesman problem in the GEQO docs
(and one in the code comments), but that's the established name for that
problem (although I do note the Wikipedia page says it's "also called
the travelling salesperson problem").
>> Update contact names in an accounts table to match the currently assigned
>> - salesmen:
>> + salespeople:
>> UPDATE accounts SET (contact_first_name, contact_last_name) =
>> - (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salesmen
>> - WHERE salesmen.id = accounts.sales_id);
>> + (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salespeople
>> + WHERE salespeople.id = 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?
Yeah, you're right. The second section (added by Tom in commit
8f889b1083f) is inconsistent with the first half in both table and
column names. Here's a patch that makes it all consistent, eliminating
the salesmen references completely, rather than renaming them.
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2022-03-25 13:08:32||Re: automatically generating node support functions|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2022-03-25 12:59:13||Re: pg_relation_size on partitioned table|