Re: ITYM DROP TABLE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ITYM DROP TABLE
Date: 2011-06-14 17:04:30
Message-ID: 1407.1308071070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Done that way (9.0 and beyond).

Re-reading the actual commit, I notice that there's now a grammatical
problem: the following sentence says

It also entirely avoids the <command>VACUUM</command>
overhead caused by a bulk <command>DELETE</>.

which was okay when "it" referred to "ALTER TABLE", but now that there
are two commands mentioned in the previous sentence, it doesn't match.
Perhaps "These commands also avoid the ...".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2011-06-14 17:10:24 Re: [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-06-14 16:59:15 Re: procpid?