From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, 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 19:01:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYehrFd=S0Ai-D1fmRBNAgvo5pQdvvjCym1H3qU-Vem_g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> TBH I'm kinda inclined to sort this out by removing all usage of the
> word "inference" everywhere --- error messages and code comments and
> documentation wording, and replace it with some other wording as
> appropriate for each context.
I would not object to that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-12-22 19:23:02 | Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-22 18:54:43 | Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join |