On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Mind you, I don't think "inference specification" is very good >> >> terminology, but what's there right now is just wrong. >> > >> > It doesn't appear in the documentation. The term "inference >> > specification" only appears where it's necessary to precisely describe >> > the input to unique index inference. >> >> Well, we can change this to say "inference specification", but I still >> think calling it the "ON CONFLICT" clause would be clearer in this >> context. > > TBH I'm kinda inclined to sort this out by removing all usage of the > word "inference" everywhere --- error messages and code comments and > documentation wording, and replace it with some other wording as > appropriate for each context.
I would not object to that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
