On 2020-Feb-14, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > The attached patch extends the previous one by one more figure, a rework of > the old explanations plus additional explanations.
So now we have two glossaries being proposed [1] [2], and they don't have much in common with each other. What to do now? If we can get the authors to agree on what patch to submit, we can move forward. I suggest to make a glossary be 0001, and then the other patches can be 0002 or further. (I also CC Liudmila, who mentioned the topic of a glossary in [3]). [1] https://postgr.es/m/d4175e85-61c6-18d5-65c9-a9e19795f...@purtz.de [2] https://postgr.es/m/CADkLM=fx_knccz97hsxmbgtsy50es_czsnzjrdcbtpyit_v...@mail.gmail.com [3] https://postgr.es/m/caekd-mbfqb61ghnwr0cn5k4g4q-i1prwnn_okvkksaaja5_...@mail.gmail.com -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
