X-Original-To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32E2475F0D
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:31:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2FLVNub015713;
	Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:31:23 -0500 (EST)
To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Row vs. tuple 
In-reply-to: <20030315210321.GO79234@perrin.int.nxad.com> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303141647200.2382-100000@peter.localdomain>
	<25320.1047690393@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20030315210321.GO79234@perrin.int.nxad.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
	message dated "Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:03:21 -0800"
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:31:22 -0500
Message-ID: <15712.1047763882@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200303/28
X-Sequence-Number: 1706

Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
> How about:  s/(row|tuple)/record/

We do need two different terms: eliminating the distinction between a
row and a version of a row is not going to improve matters.

I have nothing against the word "record", but it doesn't seem to help
clarify this distinction ...

			regards, tom lane