| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tatsuro Yamada <yamada(dot)tatsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql |
| Date: | 2015-12-22 18:04:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYDj8g8zKRgjU1SoGZ0T2BZx9iHJY=OFVag+7RmNp6Wbw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Mind you, I don't think "inference specification" is very good
>> terminology, but what's there right now is just wrong.
>
> It doesn't appear in the documentation. The term "inference
> specification" only appears where it's necessary to precisely describe
> the input to unique index inference.
Well, we can change this to say "inference specification", but I still
think calling it the "ON CONFLICT" clause would be clearer in this
context.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-22 18:32:38 | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-22 18:01:53 | Re: Possible marginally-incompatible change to array subscripting |