| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tatsuro Yamada <yamada(dot)tatsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql |
| Date: | 2015-12-22 22:58:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYFe88itO31YnzzepR7C_+Go9VeHp2jeiD7eyR0Np=0XQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> TBH I'm kinda inclined to sort this out by removing all usage of the
>>> word "inference" everywhere --- error messages and code comments and
>>> documentation wording, and replace it with some other wording as
>>> appropriate for each context.
>>
>> I would not object to that.
>
> Why? There is nothing wrong with the term inference. It's perfectly
> descriptive. It's also a term I've used as part of many talks about ON
> CONFLICT. No one has said a word about it before now.
If it's an axiom that there is nothing wrong with the term inference,
then obviously we should not change anything. But that seems to me to
be putting the cart before the horse.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-22 22:59:22 | Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-22 22:57:09 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |