From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: paddor@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Wording in TABLESAMPLE documentation
In-reply-to: 
 <CANP8+jJijc-rUNA_YuQOarFXUmHH8Qj5GuNuMMKK1MusNPepaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160811162148.26427.26037@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CANP8+jJijc-rUNA_YuQOarFXUmHH8Qj5GuNuMMKK1MusNPepaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:37:44 +0100"
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:24:13 -0400
Message-ID: <26367.1471011853@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 11 August 2016 at 17:21,  <paddor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> &gt; If REPEATABLE is not given then a new random sample is selected for each
>> query.
>> 
>> the word &quot;sample&quot; should be &quot;seed&quot;. Of course it results in a new random
>> sample as well, but IMHO this sentence is about what happens to the seed in
>> case REPEATABLE (seed) is omitted.

> Corrected, thanks.

I do not think this is an improvement.  The sentence was specifically about
whether the sample (that is, the set of rows selected) would change.  This
rewording essentially removes that user-visible behavior guarantee, and
for what?  It's certainly not any clearer.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs