> On 24 Mar 2022, at 19:34, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilm...@ilmari.org> wrote:
> I just spotted an unnecessarily gendered example involving a 'salesmen' > table in the UPDATE docs. Here's a patch that changes that to > 'salespeople'. No objections to changing that, it's AFAICT the sole such usage in the docs. > Update contact names in an accounts table to match the currently assigned > - salesmen: > + salespeople: > <programlisting> > UPDATE accounts SET (contact_first_name, contact_last_name) = > - (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salesmen > - WHERE salesmen.id = accounts.sales_id); > + (SELECT first_name, last_name FROM salespeople > + WHERE salespeople.id = accounts.sales_id); This example is a bit confusing to me, it's joining on accounts.sales_id to get the assigned salesperson, but in the example just above we are finding the salesperson by joining on accounts.sales_person. Shouldn't this be using the employees table to keep it consistent? (which also avoids the gendered issue raised here) The same goes for the second example. Or am I missing something? -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
