Re: Grammar suggestion

On Monday, January 8, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:

> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/ddl-constraints.html
> Description:
>
> Dear postgres Team,
>
> I happened to have stumbled across a tricky to read sentence in Ch. 5.45
> 'Foreign Keys' (Postgres Version 15).
>
> The original sentence: "Normally, a referencing row need not satisfy the
> foreign key constraint if any of its referencing columns are null".
>
> Here's the revised version: "Normally, a referencing row does not need to
> satisfy the foreign key constraint if any of its referencing columns are
> null."
>
> A bit restructuring in beginning of this sentence can it make it
> grammatically complete and clear for the reader.
>

I see where you are coming from but I think the word “need” is actual
problem and it has to go. We use the phrase “escapes satisfying” in the
subsequent sentence and should use it here too.

Normally, a referencing row escapes satisfying the foreign key constraint
if any of its referencing columns are null. [add: This is what is meant by
match simple]. If match full is …

Also, we go to the trouble of accepting “match partial”. Maybe add a final
sentence in this paragraph nothing that we do so and explaining what
partial is defined to mean in the standard? Also, we only note the not
implemented in the syntax parameters area, not the compatibility area…this
seems like an oversight.

David J.