Hi Hackers,
I just spotted an unnecessarily gendered example involving a 'salesmen'
table in the UPDATE docs. Here's a patch that changes that to
'salespeople'.
- ilmari
>From fde378ccd44c15f827a3c22630265f477d70d748 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilm...@ilmari.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 18:21:48 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] doc: replace 'salesmen' with 'salespeople'
---
doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml
index 3a0285df79..a1fc4bbb4a 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/update.sgml
@@ -387,21 +387,21 @@
<para>
Update contact names in an accounts table to match the currently assigned
- salesmen:
+ salespeople:
<programlisting>
UPDATE accounts SET (contact_first_name, contact_last_name) =
- (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salesmen
- WHERE salesmen.id = accounts.sales_id);
+ (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salespeople
+ WHERE salespeople.id = accounts.sales_id);
</programlisting>
A similar result could be accomplished with a join:
<programlisting>
UPDATE accounts SET contact_first_name = first_name,
contact_last_name = last_name
- FROM salesmen WHERE salesmen.id = accounts.sales_id;
+ FROM salespeople WHERE salespeople.id = accounts.sales_id;
</programlisting>
However, the second query may give unexpected results
- if <structname>salesmen</structname>.<structfield>id</structfield> is not a unique key, whereas
- the first query is guaranteed to raise an error if there are multiple
+ if <structname>salespeople</structname>.<structfield>id</structfield> is not a unique key,
+ whereas the first query is guaranteed to raise an error if there are multiple
<structfield>id</structfield> matches. Also, if there is no match for a particular
<structname>accounts</structname>.<structfield>sales_id</structfield> entry, the first query
will set the corresponding name fields to NULL, whereas the second query
--
2.30.2
