| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning with temp tables is broken |
| Date: | 2018-06-20 05:35:01 |
| Message-ID: | 88d2dc7d-7ba9-848c-7200-5f0389eeaf17@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20/06/18 16:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:32:58PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Just a minor nit in the last sentence:
>>
>> "have to be from" -> "must be from / must belong to"
> I think that both have the same meaning, but I am no native speaker so I
> may be missing a nuance of some kind.
> --
> Michael
I am a native English speaker, and I was born in England.
In this context, "have to be from", "must be from", and "must belong to"
are all logically equivalent. I have a very slight preference for "must
be from".
Cheers,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2018-06-20 05:36:43 | Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-20 05:33:04 | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |