| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem |
| Date: | 2023-09-26 13:05:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrJxauZ6BC3=2JTDE-CUXbMTVLjV2S3gw-=bFRdRAgfsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 03:03, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 10:02:55PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > It's certainly not a show-stopper. I do believe the patch makes some
> > improvements. The reason I'd prefer to see either "and" or "and/or"
> > in place of "or" is because the text is trying to imply that many of
> > these operations can run at the same time. I'm struggling to
> > understand why, given that there could be many sorts and many hashes
> > going on at once that we'd claim it could only be one *or* the other.
> > If we have 12 sorts and 4 hashes then that's not "several sort or hash
> > operations", it's "several sort and hash operations". Of course, it
> > could just be sorts or just hashes, so "and/or" works fine for that.
>
> Yes, I see your point and went with "and", updated patch attached.
Looks good to me.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2023-09-26 13:06:12 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
| Previous Message | Nishant Sharma | 2023-09-26 13:01:42 | [Code Cleanup] : Small code cleanup in twophase.sql |