typo
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/storage-file-layout.html
Description:
I think I found a typo in the manuals in the below sentence. I have
highlighted the correction within double quotes (") and UPPERCASE text. Does
it sound right ?
URL: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/storage-file-layout.html
Typo: A table that has columns with potentially large entries will have an
associated TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line storage of field
values that are too large to keep in the table rows proper
Correction: A table that has columns with potentially large entries will
have an associated TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line storage of
field values that are too large to keep in the table rows "PROPERLY".
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:47:51AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
Correction: A table that has columns with potentially large entries will
have an associated TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line storage of
field values that are too large to keep in the table rows "PROPERLY".
Thanks, committed. I have fixed the docs to reflect your suggestion.
--
Michael
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 07:56 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:47:51AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
Correction: A table that has columns with potentially large entries will
have an associated TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line storage of
field values that are too large to keep in the table rows "PROPERLY".Thanks, committed. I have fixed the docs to reflect your suggestion.
-
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?
/Magnus
Show quoted text
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 07:56 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz
<mailto:michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:47:51AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
Correction: A table that has columns with potentially large
entries will
have an associated TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line
storage of
field values that are too large to keep in the table rows "PROPERLY".
Thanks, committed. I have fixed the docs to reflect your suggestion.
-Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?
Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with the
change as well.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with the
change as well.
[... checking around ...]
Hm. I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
adjective. Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here because
it insists more on the fact that each row is involved? Just trying to
grab the difference.
--
Michael
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with the
change as well.[... checking around ...]
Hm. I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
adjective. Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here because
it insists more on the fact that each row is involved? Just trying to
grab the difference.
If the current text is unclear to people we should definitely fix it --
just to the right thing.
Maybe say something like "keep inline in the regular table rows" instead?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?
Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with the
change as well.
[... checking around ...]
Hm. I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
adjective. Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here because
it insists more on the fact that each row is involved? Just trying to
grab the difference.
I think that text is mine originally, and it was not a typo. The meaning
of "table rows proper", in this case, is basically "table rows themelves".
The first dictionary I looked at gives this example:
PROPER
Adjective [ chiefly British ]
... [ postpositive ] Strictly so called; in its true form.
"some of the dos and don'ts in espionage proper"
But I can see that a lot of people might not be familiar with that usage,
so I've got no objections to rewriting it more clearly --- any
suggestions?
regards, tom lane
On 26/11/2018 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with the
change as well.[... checking around ...]
Hm. I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
adjective. Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here because
it insists more on the fact that each row is involved? Just trying to
grab the difference.I think that text is mine originally, and it was not a typo. The meaning
of "table rows proper", in this case, is basically "table rows themelves".
The first dictionary I looked at gives this example:PROPER
Adjective [ chiefly British ]
... [ postpositive ] Strictly so called; in its true form.
"some of the dos and don'ts in espionage proper"But I can see that a lot of people might not be familiar with that usage,
so I've got no objections to rewriting it more clearly --- any
suggestions?
How about
A table that has columns with potentially large entries will have an
associated TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line storage of field
- values that are too large to keep in the table rows proper.
+ values that are too large to keep in the main table storage.--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
On 2018-11-26 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that
sentence
seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with
the
change as well.[... checking around ...]
Hm. I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
adjective. Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here
because
it insists more on the fact that each row is involved? Just trying to
grab the difference.I think that text is mine originally, and it was not a typo. The
meaning
of "table rows proper", in this case, is basically "table rows
themelves".
Maybe that is not a bad alternative
"table rows themselves"
Even if that sounds slightly less idiomatic than the original, I think
it'd be less of a stumbling block for non-native readers.
I think "table rows themselves" makes sense. I came up with another alternative as below, as long as it does not change the message, the sentence is trying to convey.
"TOAST table, which is used for out-of-line storage of field values that are too large to keep [or, be kept] within the original table."
Best Regards,
Nawaz Ahmed
Software Development Engineer
Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd
14 Rodborough Road, Frenchs Forest NSW 2086, Australia
T +61 2 9452 9027
Nawaz@fast.au.fujitsu.com
fastware.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Rijkers [mailto:er@xs4all.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2018 1:35 AM
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>; Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>; Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>; Ahmed, Nawaz <Nawaz@fast.au.fujitsu.com>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: typo
On 2018-11-26 15:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that
sentence seems to convey the message properly, and the update done
does not?Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with
the change as well.[... checking around ...]
Hm. I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
adjective. Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here
because it insists more on the fact that each row is involved? Just
trying to grab the difference.I think that text is mine originally, and it was not a typo. The
meaning of "table rows proper", in this case, is basically "table rows
themelves".
Maybe that is not a bad alternative
"table rows themselves"
Even if that sounds slightly less idiomatic than the original, I think it'd be less of a stumbling block for non-native readers.
Disclaimer
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may contain content that is subject to copyright and/or is commercial-in-confidence and is intended only for the use of the above named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that dissemination, copying or use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please telephone Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd on + 61 2 9452 9000 or by reply e-mail to the sender and delete the document and all copies thereof.
Whereas Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd would not knowingly transmit a virus within an email communication, it is the receiver’s responsibility to scan all communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects. Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd does not accept liability for any loss or damage (whether direct, indirect, consequential or economic) however caused, and whether by negligence or otherwise, which may result directly or indirectly from this communication or any files attached.
If you do not wish to receive commercial and/or marketing email messages from Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd, please email unsubscribe@fast.au.fujitsu.com
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:14:18AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
But I can see that a lot of people might not be familiar with that usage,
so I've got no objections to rewriting it more clearly --- any
suggestions?
It has been suggested upthread to use "in the table rows themselves",
which does not sound bad to me. So that would give, quoting the whole
portion:
A table that has columns with potentially large entries will have an
associated <firstterm>TOAST</firstterm> table, which is used for
out-of-line storage of
-field values that are too large to keep in the table rows properly.
+field values that are too large to keep in the table rows themselves.
<structname>pg_class</structname>.<structfield>reltoastrelid</structfield>
links from a table to
its <acronym>TOAST</acronym> table, if any.Now I cannot really stand as somebody able to decide the right thing on
this thread, proofs present on the table ;)
--
Michael