On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:00 AM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2024, at 19:07, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 9:50 AM PG Doc comments form < > nore...@postgresql.org> wrote: > >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/parallel-plans.html >> Description: >> >> In section 15.3.4, I believe "multiple results sets" is a typo for >> "multiple >> result sets". It says: >> >> > Plans that involve appending multiple results sets can therefore achieve >> coarse-grained parallelism even when efficient partial plans are not >> available. >> >> It's also possible this should say "multiple results" rather than >> "multiple >> result sets". > > > Good catch, and an acceptable solution. > > However, I'm inclined to write: "multiple inputs" at that spot: > > Plans that involve appending multiple inputs can therefore achieve... > > Using the term "result set" here just feels off, though that is a mostly > uninformed (as to precedent) opinion. > > > I think result sets the correct term since the Append node is combining > partial > results made by other parallel nodes. Doing some reading it seems to me > that > "results sets" isn't incorrect (though I might have misunderstood the > grammar > from not being a native speaker), but I'm still inclined to change since we > consistently use "result sets" in the rest of the documentation. > > Yes, if we leave the term "result set" in place the trailing "s" in the existing "results" needs to go. I was referring to the term as a whole when I said it "feels off", not that the spelling of "result sets" is wrong. David J.
