Re: improve routine vacuuming docs
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: improve routine vacuuming docs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200312140125.32269.peter_e@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: improve routine vacuuming docs (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote: > Well, my reasoning was that the phrase "VACUUM", particularly when > typeset as a command, has an exact technical meaning within the > context of PostgreSQL. The difference is that "VACUUM" is clearly meant to refer to the command, and as such it is not a verb. So write "run [the command] VACUUM" and you're on the safe side. That also saves you from creating entities like "VACUUMing", which are beyond ugly. > The presence of a for update trigger on the table [...] > > (To invent a random example) I think this is clearer: > > The presence of a <literal>FOR UPDATE</literal> trigger on the > table [...] This is OK, because in English you can use almost anything as an adjective. > However, I Am Not A Technical Writer, so I may be completely > wrong. BTW, can anyone recommend a good book on technical writing in > English? I find that "The Chicago Manual of Style" has answered all my questions so far. That's not targeted specially at technical writing, but it's good allround information.
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: