Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "petermittere(at)gmail(dot)com" <petermittere(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary
Date: 2025-07-14 17:45:58
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYqj=_=5atc1bL0N_bPsgALzh--jH3kM6MbC2ON49P7AA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Monday, July 14, 2025, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If we accept that we use the words statement and command interchangeably
> > then the sole remaining use of command here sticks out because now we
> have
> > to explain why commands are different from statements. I'd rather just
> > remove the parenthetical. It's poorly clarifying a point that it seems
> you
> > don't want to clarify more fully here.
>
> [ shrug... ] I'm inclined to go back to the "command message" wording
> then. I don't find "client-issued statement" to be helpful at all;
> in particular, it's flat wrong for the multi-statement-query-message
> case, because surely all those statements are client-issued. I'm okay
> with this text leaving out nitpicky details, but it should leave the
> reader with a mental model that more or less matches reality.
>

Then let’s use command message. It basically the moral equivalent to my
(technically, query) parenthetical.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2025-07-15 05:36:13 Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-07-14 17:40:35 Re: please define 'statement' in the glossary