Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On 2015/12/23 8:45, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> In my opinion a term more closely coupled to the concrete syntax would >> be easier to understand. I have no objection to referring to the >> *process* of trying to deduce a

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas >> > wrote: >> >> Mind you, I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> 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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> TBH I'm kinda inclined to sort this out by removing all usage of the >>> word "inference" everywhere --- error messages and code comments and

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > In my opinion a term more closely coupled to the concrete syntax would > be easier to understand. I have no objection to referring to the > *process* of trying to deduce a suitable index from the ON CONFLICT > clause as

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > If it's an axiom that there is nothing wrong with the term inference, > then obviously we should not change anything. But that seems to me to > be putting the cart before the horse. OK, then. What's wrong with the term

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Mind you, I don't think "inference specification" is very good > >> terminology, but what's there right now is just

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> If it's an axiom that there is nothing wrong with the term inference, >> then obviously we should not change anything. But that seems to me to

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas 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

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > I found typos in privileges.sql and privileges.out > Please find attached a patch. Thanks, good catch. But even aside from this particular issue, isn't that comment in need of a little more love? An

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On 2015-12-18 13:50:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Tatsuro Yamada > wrote: > > I found typos in privileges.sql and privileges.out > > Please find attached a patch. > > Thanks, good catch. But even aside from this particular issue,

Re: [HACKERS] A Typo in regress/sql/privileges.sql

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-12-18 13:50:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Tatsuro Yamada >> wrote: >> > I found typos in privileges.sql and privileges.out >> > Please find