Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mind you, I don't think "inference specification" is very good > >> terminology, but what's there right now is just wrong. > > > > It doesn't appear in the documentation. The term "inference > > specification" only appears where it's necessary to precisely describe > > the input to unique index inference. > > Well, we can change this to say "inference specification", but I still > think calling it the "ON CONFLICT" clause would be clearer in this > context.
TBH I'm kinda inclined to sort this out by removing all usage of the word "inference" everywhere --- error messages and code comments and documentation wording, and replace it with some other wording as appropriate for each context. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
