Typo in perform.sgml?

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:05 PM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

Around line 904 of perform.sgml

"These node types have the ability to discard subnodes which they are
able to determine won't contain any records required by the query."

I was not able to parse this. Maybe "that they " is needed after
"determine"?

Agreed. Also, I'm not a native english speaker either, but the
"which" sounds weird too. How about:

These node types have the ability to discard subnodes for which they
are able to determine that won't contain any records required by the
query.

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:05 PM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

Around line 904 of perform.sgml
"These node types have the ability to discard subnodes which they are
able to determine won't contain any records required by the query."

I was not able to parse this. Maybe "that they " is needed after
"determine"?

Agreed. Also, I'm not a native english speaker either, but the
"which" sounds weird too. How about:

These node types have the ability to discard subnodes for which they
are able to determine that won't contain any records required by the
query.

Hm. A grammar purist would say that the "which" should be "that",
because it's introducing a restrictive clause. But I think the real
problem here is that "contain" is a crummy choice of verb: the notion
of a plan node "containing" records is what seems weird to me.
I think "produce" might work better. Also, there's a lot of unnecessary
words here; I think we should be trying to make the sentence shorter
not longer. How about something like

"These node types will discard subnodes when they detect that a
particular subnode won't produce any records required by the query."

Actually, that whole para could do with a rewrite; whoever wrote
it was obviously not familiar with Strunk & White's dictum
"Omit needless words".

regards, tom lane

I wrote:

Actually, that whole para could do with a rewrite; whoever wrote
it was obviously not familiar with Strunk & White's dictum
"Omit needless words".

Looking closer, there were also some unnecessary inconsistencies with
the rest of the section, such as use of "records" rather than "rows",
and different markup choices. I propose the attached ... it's
actually a bit longer than the original, but that's because it
offers more details.

regards, tom lane

I wrote:

Actually, that whole para could do with a rewrite; whoever wrote
it was obviously not familiar with Strunk & White's dictum
"Omit needless words".

Looking closer, there were also some unnecessary inconsistencies with
the rest of the section, such as use of "records" rather than "rows",
and different markup choices. I propose the attached ... it's
actually a bit longer than the original, but that's because it
offers more details.

Thanks for looking into this. The patch looks much cleaner than
before.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 3:51 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

I wrote:

Actually, that whole para could do with a rewrite; whoever wrote
it was obviously not familiar with Strunk & White's dictum
"Omit needless words".

Looking closer, there were also some unnecessary inconsistencies with
the rest of the section, such as use of "records" rather than "rows",
and different markup choices. I propose the attached ... it's
actually a bit longer than the original, but that's because it
offers more details.

Thanks for looking into this. The patch looks much cleaner than
before.

I agree this is way better!

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 3:51 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

Thanks for looking into this. The patch looks much cleaner than
before.

I agree this is way better!

Pushed like that, then.

regards, tom lane