On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 06:41:54PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Drew DeVault <s...@cmpwn.com> writes:
> > Minor grammatical fix.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure that reads any better than before.
>
> > <para>
> > - Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but
> > + Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, not recursion, but
> > <literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL
> standards
>
> ... although I think this text is mine, so naturally I'd think
> that. Anyone else have an opinion?
>
>
>
> If I read that aloud to myself there is a comma after iteration.
>
> That said, given that a comma and a "but" later we use the word "RECURSIVE"
> the
> clarification that the process isn't recursion seems redundant. If one knows
> what it means to be "recursive" then they will understand the juxtaposition of
> "iteration" and "recursive" just fine. If they do not, I don't think adding
> the word "recursion" is going to make much difference.
>
> Thus:
> Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but <literal>RECURSIVE</literal>
> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee."
>
> Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not
> recursion" it should be set off by a comma.
I went with new wording, which should make this even clearer; patch
attached.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml
index 516fbcbf37..51b752709e 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml
@@ -2172,7 +2172,7 @@ SELECT sum(n) FROM t;
<note>
<para>
- Strictly speaking, this process is iteration not recursion, but
+ Strictly speaking, this process is iterative, not recursive, but
<literal>RECURSIVE</literal> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards
committee.
</para>
