From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Cc: Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 19:58:04 +0200
Message-ID: <ee0a326f-d358-16f2-8dbb-a5172f982142@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yv6AqJuvnP3HelUP@momjian.us>
References: <20211018091720.31299-1-sir@cmpwn.com>
<2007662.1634679184@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAKFQuwbp31e9bx38nfN16z0Vrqig7D=dh8WCN+aMBbxMaDw8Dg@mail.gmail.com>
<Yv6AqJuvnP3HelUP@momjian.us>
On 18.08.22 20:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Thus:
>> Strictly speaking, this process is iteration, but <literal>RECURSIVE</literal>
>> is the terminology chosen by the SQL standards committee."
>>
>> Because the above sounds just fine, I'd argue that if one does leave "not
>> recursion" it should be set off by a comma.
> I went with new wording, which should make this even clearer; patch
> attached.
I think this whole note is a bit misleading, like the SQL people don't
know what recursion is. The point is that the query is defined
recursively. The evaluation process is iterative. Those two are not
contradictions.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, bruce@momjian.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sir@cmpwn.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/queries.sgml: add missing comma
In-Reply-To: <ee0a326f-d358-16f2-8dbb-a5172f982142@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox