Обсуждение: Grammar suggestion
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. Kindly yours, Sayed Dileri.
On Monday, January 8, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.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.
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
Meh. I don't like the "escapes" construction too much; I think it's
more confusing than "need not". But I agree that the two sentences
should use parallel constructions.
> 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?
I'd be inclined not to. That info would fit in the reference page
that covers this, but this is introductory material and shouldn't
get too deep in the weeds. (Of course, if we ever did add MATCH
PARTIAL, we'd have to explain it here. But nobody's done so in
twenty years so I'm not holding my breath.)
regards, tom lane