From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | alaa(dot)attya91(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: add new acronym "AM" |
Date: | 2023-11-13 12:38:57 |
Message-ID: | 4F49DE18-AF28-489E-B2CB-654EC6FC9C95@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> On 13 Nov 2023, at 12:20, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Nov-13, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> That's a fair point. It's sort of hard to refer back from the acronym list
>> though since we don't have a single Access Method section but instead one for
>> Indexes and one for Relations. In the attached diff I propose that we add a
>> glossary entry for Access Method (suggested better wording much appreciated)
>> which the acronym can refer to. Being such a core concept it doesn't seem like
>> a bad idea to explain it.
>
> +1 for a glossary entry.
>
> + Access methods are the interfaces which
> + <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> use in order to access relations
> + and indexes. This abstraction allows for adding support for new
> + types of tuple storage. For more information, see <xref linkend="indexam" />
> + and <xref linkend="tableam" />.
>
> We don't start the glossary definition with the term we're defining.
> For example, we say
> Atomicity
> The property of a transaction that ...
> we don't say
> Atomicity
> Atomicity is the property of ...
>
> So you would want your definition to be something like
> "Interfaces which PostgreSQL use to ..."
>
> I'd say "data in tables and indexes" rather than "relations and
> indexes", and "data storage" instead of "tuple storage".
>
> "For more information" should be its own <para>.
Thanks, that makes it a lot better. v2 with the above changes attached.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-doc-Add-acronym-and-glossary-term-for-Access-Meth.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-11-13 14:24:33 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently |
Previous Message | Roman Frołow | 2023-11-13 11:27:22 | Re: T is a mandatory date time separator in RFC3339 but documentation states differently |