On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Tom, all, > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes: >> > So there is a precedent for using “target” for this command. >> >> I wouldn't object to substituting "target" for "victim"; they're both >> pretty specific, and there's little risk of misunderstanding which >> database is meant. I don't know if that amounts to much of an >> advance in political correctness, though. > > Based on my review of what 'dict' returns for each, 'target' is > distinctly more appropriate. Both definitions in WordNet for > 'victim' refer to a 'person' and other dictionaries definitely > refer to 'person or living creature' more than not. >
As a non-native English speaker I associate 'victim' with a person, so 'target' sound more neutral and enough informative. > The definitions for 'target', on the other hand, more generally refer to > a goal or something which is being shot at and the references to > 'person' in those definitions appears more in the vein of "covering all > bases" as it relates to 'person, place, or thing'. > >> I'm less happy about substituting vaguer words like "subject". >> Particularly for non-native English speakers, that seems like it >> could be confusing --- eg, if you know the distinction between >> subject and object of a sentence, you might think it means the >> DB where the command is being issued. > > Agreed. > > Thanks! > > Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
