| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Limits: maximum number of columns in SELECT result |
| Date: | 2022-06-01 00:55:29 |
| Message-ID: | 379461.1654044929@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe "columns per result set" would have been a better title for consistency.
I can't quite put my finger on why, but that wording seems odd to me,
even though "columns per table" is natural enough. "In a" reads much
better here IMO. Anyway, I see you committed it that way, and it's
certainly not worth the effort to change further.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-06-01 02:00:09 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-06-01 00:51:24 | Re: PostgreSQL Limits: maximum number of columns in SELECT result |