On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.

I would not object to that.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to