Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
>     Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> writes:
>     > Minor grammatical fix.
> 
>     Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before.
> 
>     >     <para>
>     > -    Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but
>     > +    Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, not recursion, but
>     >      <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL
>     standards
> 
>     ... although I think this text is mine, so naturally I'd think
>     that.  Anyone else have an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> If I read that aloud to myself there is a comma after iteration.
> 
> That said, given that a comma and a "but" later we use the word "RECURSIVE" the
> clarification that the process isn't recursion seems redundant.  If one knows
> what it means to be "recursive" then they will understand the juxtaposition of
> "iteration" and "recursive" just fine.  If they do not, I don't think adding
> the word "recursion" is going to make much difference.
> 
> Thus:
> Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but <literal>RECURSIVE</literal>
> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee."
> 
> Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not
> recursion" it should be set off by a comma.

I went with new wording, which should make this even clearer;  patch
attached.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Indecision is a decision.  Inaction is an action.  Mark Batterson