| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, devguy(dot)ca(at)gmail(dot)com, "pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inappropriate word 'victim' |
| Date: | 2017-10-03 23:05:42 |
| Message-ID: | 29011.1507071942@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> So there is a precedent for using “target” for this command.
I wouldn't object to substituting "target" for "victim"; they're both
pretty specific, and there's little risk of misunderstanding which
database is meant. I don't know if that amounts to much of an
advance in political correctness, though.
I'm less happy about substituting vaguer words like "subject".
Particularly for non-native English speakers, that seems like it
could be confusing --- eg, if you know the distinction between
subject and object of a sentence, you might think it means the
DB where the command is being issued.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-10-04 00:17:50 | Re: inappropriate word 'victim' |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2017-10-03 21:53:30 | Re: inappropriate word 'victim' |