Re: Add A Glossary

Thanks for these fixes! I included all of these. On 2020-Jun-19, Erik Rijkers wrote: > And one thing that I am not sure of (but strikes me as a bit odd): > there are several cases of > 'are enforced unique'. Should that not be > 'are enforced to be unique' ? I included this change too; I am no

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-06-19 01:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2020-Jun-16, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I noticed one typo: 'aggregates functions' should be 'aggregate functions' And one thing that I am not sure of (but strikes me as a bit odd): ther

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Jun-16, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Thanks for the review. I merged all your suggestions. This one: > >Most local objects belong to a specific > > + schema in their > > + containing database, such as > > +

Re: Add A Glossary

On 17.06.20 02:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2020-Jun-09, Jürgen Purtz wrote: Can you agree to the following definitions? If no, we can alternatively formulate for each of them: "Under discussion - currently not defined". My proposals are inspired by chapter 2.2 Concepts: "Tables are grouped in

Re: Add A Glossary

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml > index 25b03f3b37..e29b55e5ac 100644 > --- a/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml > @@ -395,15 +395,15 @@ > > The base directo

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Jun-09, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > Can you agree to the following definitions? If no, we can alternatively > formulate for each of them: "Under discussion - currently not defined". My > proposals are inspired by chapter 2.2 Concepts: "Tables are grouped into > databases, and a collection of dat

Re: Add A Glossary

On 17.05.20 17:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think the terms under discussion are just * cluster * instance * server Despite the short period of its existence the glossary achieved some importance, see: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b8e12875ebec9e6d3107df5fa1129e1e%40postgrespro.ru .

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-04-29 21:55, Corey Huinker wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:15 PM Peter Eisentraut > wrote: Why are all the glossary terms capitalized?  Seems kind of strange. They weren't intended to be, and they don't appear to be in the page I'm lookin

Re: Add A Glossary

On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 13:17 +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > FWIW, I feel somewhat like Alvaro on that point; I use those terms > > synonymously, > > perhaps distinguishing between a "started cluster" and a "stopped cluster". > > After all, "cluster" refers to "a cluster of databases", which are the

Re: Add A Glossary

On 19.05.20 08:17, Laurenz Albe wrote: On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 18:08 +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: cluster/instance: PG (mainly) consists of a group of processes that commonly act on shared buffers. The processes are very closely related to each other and with the buffers. They exist altogether or no

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-05-19 08:17, Laurenz Albe wrote: The term "cluster" is unfortunate, because to most people it suggests a group of machines, so the term "instance" is better, but that ship has sailed long ago. I don't see what would stop us from renaming some things, with some care. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: Add A Glossary

I think there needs to be a careful analysis of the language and a formal effort to stabilise it for the future. In the context of, say, an Oracle T series, which is partitioned into multiple domains (virtual machines) in it, each of these has multiple CPUs, and can run an instance of the OS which

Re: Add A Glossary

On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 18:08 +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > cluster/instance: PG (mainly) consists of a group of processes that commonly > act on shared buffers. The processes are very closely related to each other > and with the buffers. They exist altogether or not at all. They use a common > initia

Re: Add A Glossary

On 17.05.20 17:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2020-May-17, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2020-05-17 08:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I don't think that's the general understanding of those terms. For all I know, they*are* synonyms, and there's no specific term for "the fluctuating objects" as you call th

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-May-17, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2020-05-17 08:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I don't think that's the general understanding of those terms. For all > > I know, they *are* synonyms, and there's no specific term for "the > > fluctuating objects" as you call them. The instance is either ru

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-05-17 08:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2020-May-17, Jürgen Purtz wrote: On 15.05.20 02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thanks everybody. I have compiled together all the suggestions and the > > * I changed "instance", and made "cluster" be mostly a synonym of that. In my understanding, "ins

Re: Add A Glossary

On 17.05.20 08:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 15.05.20 02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Thanks everybody. I have compiled together all the suggestions and the result is in the attached patch. Some of it is of my own devising. * I changed "instance", and made "cluster" be mostly a synonym of that.

Re: Add A Glossary

On 17.05.20 08:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Any object that exists in a database is local, regardless of whether it exists in a schema or not. This implies that the term "local" is unnecessary, just call them "SQL object". "Extensions" is one type of object that does not belong in a schema. "Fore

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-May-17, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > On 15.05.20 02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Thanks everybody. I have compiled together all the suggestions and the > > result is in the attached patch. Some of it is of my own devising. > > > > * I changed "instance", and made "cluster" be mostly a synonym

Re: Add A Glossary

On 15.05.20 02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Thanks everybody. I have compiled together all the suggestions and the result is in the attached patch. Some of it is of my own devising. * I changed "instance", and made "cluster" be mostly a synonym of that. In my understanding, "instance" and "cluste

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-May-16, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2020-05-15 19:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Applied all these suggestions, and made a few additional very small > > edits, and pushed -- better to ship what we have now in beta1, but > > further edits are still possible. > > I've gone through the glossary

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-05-15 19:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Applied all these suggestions, and made a few additional very small edits, and pushed -- better to ship what we have now in beta1, but further edits are still possible. I've gone through the glossary as committed and found some more small things; patc

Re: Add A Glossary

Applied all these suggestions, and made a few additional very small edits, and pushed -- better to ship what we have now in beta1, but further edits are still possible. Other possible terms to define, including those from the tweet I linked to and a couple more: archive availability backup compos

Re: Add A Glossary

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:00:17PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > + ACID > + > + > + Atomicity, > + consistency, > + isolation, and > + durability. > + A set of properties of database transactions intended to guarantee > validity > + in concurrent operation and eve

Re: Add A Glossary

Thanks everybody. I have compiled together all the suggestions and the result is in the attached patch. Some of it is of my own devising. * I changed "instance", and made "cluster" be mostly a synonym of that. * I removed "global SQL object" and made "SQL object" explain it. * Added definition

Re: Add A Glossary

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:15 PM Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Why are all the glossary terms capitalized? Seems kind of strange. > > They weren't intended to be, and they don't appear to be in the page I'm looking at. Are you referring to the anchor like in https:/

Re: Add A Glossary

Why are all the glossary terms capitalized? Seems kind of strange. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Re: Add A Glossary

On 11.04.20 21:47, Corey Huinker wrote: Term 'relation': A sequence is internally a table with one row - right? Shall we extend the list of concrete relations by 'sequence'? Or is this not necessary because 'table' is already there? I wrote one for sequence, it was a bit

Re: Add A Glossary

> > > Term 'relation': A sequence is internally a table with one row - right? > Shall we extend the list of concrete relations by 'sequence'? Or is this > not necessary because 'table' is already there? > I wrote one for sequence, it was a bit math-y for Alvaro's taste, so we're going to try again

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-05, Jürgen Purtz wrote: a) Some rearrangements of the sequence of terms to meet alphabetical order. Thanks, will get this pushed. b)   -->   in two cases. Or should it be a ? Ah, yeah, those should be linkend. Term 'relation': A sequence is internally a table with one row - righ

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-05, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > As the definitions are short and to the point, maybe the HTML display > > > could (also) "hover" the definitions when the mouse passes over the word, > > > using the "title" attribute? > > > > I like that idea, if it doesn't conflict with accessibility s

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-05, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > a) Some rearrangements of the sequence of terms to meet alphabetical order. Thanks, will get this pushed. > b)   -->   in > two cases. Or should it be a ? Ah, yeah, those should be linkend. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ Pos

Re: Add A Glossary

a) Some rearrangements of the sequence of terms to meet alphabetical order. b)   -->   in two cases. Or should it be a ? Kind regards, Jürgen diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml index 8c6cb6e942..25762b7c3a 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/glossary.sgml +++ b/doc/s

Re: Add A Glossary

Hi Corey, ISTM that occurrences of these words elsewhere in the documentation should link to the glossary definitions? Yes, that's a big project. I was considering writing a script to compile all the terms as search terms, paired with their glossary ids, and then invoke git grep to identify

Re: Add A Glossary

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:55 AM Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > BTW it's now visible at: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/glossary.html Nice. I went looking for it yesterday and the docs hadn't rebuilt yet. > ISTM that occurrences of these words elsewhere in the documentation should > link

Re: Add A Glossary

- Server: is that really our definition? I thought that "server" is what the glossary defines as "instance", and the thing called "server" in the glossary should really be called "host". Maybe I am too Unix-centered. Many people I know use "instance" synonymous to "cluster". Cur

Re: Add A Glossary

BTW it's now visible at: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/glossary.html Awesome! Linking beetween defs and to relevant sections is great. BTW, I'm in favor of "an SQL" because I pronounce it "ess-kew-el", but I guess that people who say "sequel" would prefer "a SQL". Failing that, I'm

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 16:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > BTW it's now visible at: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/glossary.html Great! Some comments: - SQL object: There are more kinds of objects, like roles or full text dictionaries. Perhaps better: Anything that is created wit

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-04-03 22:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2020-Apr-03, Erik Rijkers wrote: On 2020-04-03 18:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Pushed now. Many thanks to Corey who put the main thrust, and to Jürgen > and Roger for the great help, and to Justin for the extensive review and > Fabien for the initia

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 05:51:43PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > - The internal representation of one value of a SQL > + The internal representation of one value of an SQL I'm not sure about this one. The new glossary says "a SQL" seven times, and doesn't say "an sql" at all. "An SQL" d

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-03, Erik Rijkers wrote: > On 2020-04-03 18:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Pushed now. Many thanks to Corey who put the main thrust, and to Jürgen > > and Roger for the great help, and to Justin for the extensive review and > > Fabien for the initial discussion. > > A few improvements:

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-04-03 18:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Pushed now. Many thanks to Corey who put the main thrust, and to Jürgen and Roger for the great help, and to Justin for the extensive review and Fabien for the initial discussion. A few improvements: 'its value that cannot' should be 'its value ca

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:34 PM Corey Huinker wrote: > Thanks for all your work on this! > And to add on to Corey's message of thanks, I also want to thank everyone for their input and assistance on that. I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this project!

Re: Add A Glossary

> > we have it, we can start thinking of patching the main part of the docs > to make reference to it by using in key spots. Right now > the glossary links to itself, but it makes lots of sense to have other > places point to it. > I have some ideas about how to patch the main docs, but will lea

Re: Add A Glossary

Pushed now. Many thanks to Corey who put the main thrust, and to Jürgen and Roger for the great help, and to Justin for the extensive review and Fabien for the initial discussion. This is just a starting point. Let's keep improving it. And how that we have it, we can start thinking of patching

Re: Add A Glossary

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:09:32PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > "partition" instead). If you (or anybody) have suggestions for the > definition of "client" and "session", I'm all ears. We already have Session: A Connection to the Database. I propose: Client: A host (or a process o

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-02, Corey Huinker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > > +1 and many thanks to Alvaros edits. > > > > > I did some of the grunt work Alvaro alluded to in v6, and the results are > attached and they build, which means there are no invalid links. Thank you!

Re: Add A Glossary

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > +1 and many thanks to Alvaros edits. > > I did some of the grunt work Alvaro alluded to in v6, and the results are attached and they build, which means there are no invalid links. Notes: * no definition wordings were changed * added a linkend

Re: Add A Glossary

+1 and many thanks to Alvaros edits. Kind regards Jürgen Purtz

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-01, Corey Huinker wrote: > > I propose we define "planner" and make "optimizer" a entry. > > I have no objection to more entries, or edits to entries, but am concerned > that the process leads to someone having to manually merge several > start-from-scratch patches, with no clear sen

Re: Add A Glossary

> > I propose we define "planner" and make "optimizer" a entry. > I have no objection to more entries, or edits to entries, but am concerned that the process leads to someone having to manually merge several start-from-scratch patches, with no clear sense of when we'll be done. I may make sense t

Re: Add A Glossary

> > 2. I found out that "see xyz" and "see also" have bespoke markup in > Docbook -- and . I changed some glossentries > to use those, removing some glossdefs and changing a couple of paras to > glossseealsos. I also removed all "id" properties from glossentries > that are just , because I think

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-01, Justin Pryzby wrote: > planner/optimizer: ... I propose we define "planner" and make "optimizer" a entry. I further propose not to define the term "normalized", at least not for now. That seems a very deep rabbit hole. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.

Re: Add A Glossary

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:26:02PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: > Just so I can prioritize my work, which of these things, along with your > suggestions in previous emails, would you say is a barrier to considering > this ready for a committer? To answer your off-list inquiry, I'm not likely to mar

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Apr-01, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > On 31.03.20 19:58, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > > Please find some minor suggestions in the attachment. They are based on > > > Corey's last patch 0001-glossary-v4.patch. > > > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @

Re: Add A Glossary

On 31.03.20 19:58, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: Please find some minor suggestions in the attachment. They are based on Corey's last patch 0001-glossary-v4.patch. @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ Records to the file system and creates a special

Re: Add A Glossary

On 31.03.20 20:07, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:10:19PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: + +Aggregating + + + The act of combining a collection of data (input) values into + a single output value, which may not be of the same type as the + input val

Re: Add A Glossary

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:09 PM Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 04:52:05PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: > > 1. It's obviously incomplete. There are more terms, a lot more, to add. > > How did you come up with the initial list of terms ? > 1. I asked some newer database people to co

Re: Add A Glossary

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 04:52:05PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: > 1. It's obviously incomplete. There are more terms, a lot more, to add. How did you come up with the initial list of terms ? Here's some ideas; I'm *not* suggesting to include all of everything, but hopefully start with a coherent,

Re: Add A Glossary

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:10:19PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: > + > +Aggregating > + > + > + The act of combining a collection of data (input) values into > + a single output value, which may not be of the same type as the > + input values. I think we maybe already

Re: Add A Glossary

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > Please find some minor suggestions in the attachment. They are based on > Corey's last patch 0001-glossary-v4.patch. > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ >Records to the file system and creates a special >checkpoint record. This proc

Re: Add A Glossary

On 30.03.20 19:10, Corey Huinker wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:29 AM Jürgen Purtz > wrote: On 27.03.20 21:12, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32:25PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote: + Archiver >>> Can you change that to archiver pr

Re: Add A Glossary

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:29 AM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > On 27.03.20 21:12, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32:25PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > +Archiver > >>> Can you change that to archiver process ? > >> I prefer the short term without the addition of 'process' - con

Re: Add A Glossary

On 27.03.20 21:12, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32:25PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote: +Archiver Can you change that to archiver process ? I prefer the short term without the addition of 'process' - concerning 'Archiver' as well as the other cases. But I'm not an native Engl

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32:25PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > > +Archiver > > Can you change that to archiver process ? > > I prefer the short term without the addition of 'process' - concerning > 'Archiver' as well as the other cases. But I'm not an native English > speaker. I didn't lik

Re: Add A Glossary

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 3:40 PM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > On 24.03.20 19:46, Robert Haas wrote: > Do we use shared_buffers for WAL ? > > No. > > What's about the explanation in > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-wal.html : "wal_buffers > (integer)The amount of shared memory used

Re: Add A Glossary

On 24.03.20 19:46, Robert Haas wrote: Do we use shared_buffers for WAL ? No. What's about the explanation in https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-wal.html : "wal_buffers (integer)    The amount of shared memory used for WAL data that has not yet been written to disk. The defau

Re: Add A Glossary

> > > > > + Records to the file system and creates a special > > > > Does the chckpointer actually write WAL ? > > Yes. > > > An FK doesn't require the values in its table to be unique, right ? > > I believe it does require that the values are unique. > > > I think there's some confusion. Con

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:58 PM Justin Pryzby wrote: > > + A process that writes dirty pages and WAL > > + Records to the file system and creates a special > > Does the chckpointer actually write WAL ? Yes. > An FK doesn't require the values in its table to be unique, right ? I believ

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-03-20 01:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I gave this a look. I first reformatted it so I could read it; that's 0001. Second I changed all the long items into s, which are shorter and don't have to repeat the title of the refered to page. (Of course, this changes the link to be in the same st

Re: Add A Glossary

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 03:08:30PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > On 21.03.20 00:03, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > > + > > > > > +Host > > > > > + > > > > > + > > > > > + See Server. > > > > Or client. Or proxy at some layer or other intermediate thing. Maybe > > > > just > > >

Re: Add A Glossary

On 21.03.20 00:03, Justin Pryzby wrote: + +Host + + + See Server. Or client. Or proxy at some layer or other intermediate thing. Maybe just remove this. Sometimes the term "host" is used in a different meaning. Therefor we shall have this glossary entry for clarification

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 6:32 PM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > man pages: Sorry, if I confused someone with my poor English. I just > want to express in my 'offline' mail that we don't have to worry about > man page generation. The patch doesn't affect files in the /ref > subdirectory from where man pages

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32:25PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > > + > > > +File Segment > > > + > > > + > > > + If a heap or index file grows in size over 1 GB, it will be split > > 1GB is the default "segment size", which you should define. > > ??? "A <> or other >>Relati

Re: Add A Glossary

On 20.03.20 20:58, Justin Pryzby wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:11:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: +Aggregate + + + To combine a collection of data values into a single value, whose + value may not be of the same type as the original values. + Aggregate Functio

Re: Add A Glossary

man pages: Sorry, if I confused someone with my poor English. I just want to express in my 'offline' mail that we don't have to worry about man page generation. The patch doesn't affect files in the /ref subdirectory from where man pages are created. review process: Yes, it will be time-consum

Re: Add A Glossary

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:11:22PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > +Aggregate > + > + > + To combine a collection of data values into a single value, whose > + value may not be of the same type as the original values. > + Aggregate Functions > + combine multiple Rows

Re: Add A Glossary

> > It's hard to review work from a professional tech writer. I'm under the > constant impression that I'm ruining somebody's perfect end product, > making a fool of myself. If it makes you feel better, it's a mix of definitions I wrote that Roger proofed and restructured, ones that Jürgen had w

Re: Add A Glossary

Alvaro, I know that you are joking, but I want to impress on everyone: please don't feel like anyone here is breaking anything when it comes to modifying the content and structure of this glossary. I do have technical writing experience, but everyone else here is a subject matter expert when it co

Re: Add A Glossary

On 2020-Mar-20, Corey Huinker wrote: > > Jürgen mentioned off-list that the man page doesn't build. I was going to > > look into that, but if anyone has more familiarity with that, I'm listening. > Looking at this some more, I'm not sure anything needs to be done for man > pages. Yeah, I don't t

Re: Add A Glossary

> > Jürgen mentioned off-list that the man page doesn't build. I was going to >> look into that, but if anyone has more familiarity with that, I'm listening. >> > Looking at this some more, I'm not sure anything needs to be done for man pages. man1 is for executables, man3 seems to be dblink and SP

Re: Add A Glossary

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:11 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I gave this a look. I first reformatted it so I could read it; that's > 0001. Second I changed all the long items into s, which > Thanks! I didn't know about xrefs, that is a big improvement. > are shorter and don't have to repeat the

Re: Add A Glossary

I gave this a look. I first reformatted it so I could read it; that's 0001. Second I changed all the long items into s, which are shorter and don't have to repeat the title of the refered to page. (Of course, this changes the link to be in the same style as every other link in our documentation;

Re: Add A Glossary

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:18 AM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > The statement that names of schema objects are unique isn't *strictly* true, > just *mostly* true. Take the case of a unique constraints. > > Concerning CONSTRAINTS you are right. Constraints seems to be an exception: > >- Their name be

Re: Add A Glossary

The statement that names of schema objects are unique isn't /strictly/ true, just /mostly/ true. Take the case of a unique constraints. Concerning CONSTRAINTS you are right. Constraints seems to be an exception: * Their name belongs to a schema, but are not necessarily unique within thi

Re: Add A Glossary

> > > * Transaction - yes, all those things could be "visible" or they could be > "side effects". It may be best to leave the over-simplified definition in > place, and add a "For more information see < tutorial-transactions>> > transaction-iso would be a better linkref in this case

Re: Add A Glossary

> > It will be helpful for diff-ing to restrict the length of lines in the > SGML files to 71 characters (as usual). I did it that way for the following reasons 1. It aids grep-ability 2. The committers seem to be moving towards that for SQL strings, mostly for reason #1 3. I recall that the code

Re: Add A Glossary

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:50 PM Jürgen Purtz wrote: > I made changes on top of 0001-add-glossary-page.patch which was supplied > by C. Huinker. This affects not only terms proposed by me but also his > original terms. If my changes are not obvious, please let me know and I > will describe my mot

Re: Add A Glossary

I made changes on top of 0001-add-glossary-page.patch which was supplied by C. Huinker. This affects not only terms proposed by me but also his original terms. If my changes are not obvious, please let me know and I will describe my motivation. Please note especially lines marked with question

Re: Add A Glossary

Hello, everyone, I'm Roger, the tech writer who worked with Corey on the glossary file. I just thought I'd announce that I am also on the list, and I'm looking forward to any questions or comments people may have. Thanks! On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:37 AM Corey Huinker wrote: > This latest versio

Re: Add A Glossary

This latest version is an attempt at merging the work of Jürgen Purtz into what I had posted earlier. There was relatively little overlap in the terms we had chosen to define. Each glossary definition now has a reference id (good idea Jürgen), the form of which is "glossary-term". So we can link t

Re: Add A Glossary

> > It seems like this could be a good idea, still the patch has been > waiting on his author for more than two weeks now, so I have marked it > as returned with feedback. > In light of feedback, I enlisted the help of an actual technical writer (Roger Harkavy, CCed) and we eventually found the ti

Re: Add A Glossary

On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 09:19:16AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > On principle, I'm fine with having a glossary, i.e. word definitions, which > are expected to be rather stable in the long run. > > I'm wondering whether the effort would not be made redundant by other > on-line effort such as wikipe

Re: Add A Glossary

Hello Corey, My 0.02€: On principle, I'm fine with having a glossary, i.e. word definitions, which are expected to be rather stable in the long run. I'm wondering whether the effort would not be made redundant by other on-line effort such as wikipedia, wiktionary, stackoverflow, standards,