Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYehrFd=S0Ai-D1fmRBNAgvo5pQdvvjCym1H3qU-Vem_g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Mind you, I don't think "inference specification" is very good >> >> terminology, but what's there right now is just wrong. >> > >> > It doesn't appear in the documentation. The term "inference >> > specification" only appears where it's necessary to precisely describe >> > the input to unique index inference. >> >> Well, we can change this to say "inference specification", but I still >> think calling it the "ON CONFLICT" clause would be clearer in this >> context. > > 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: