On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 23:16, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 00:24, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 09:35, Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote: >> > Thanks for all the feedback to date. Please see the next revision. >> > Again, please provide feedback no later than 2024-05-22 18:00 UTC. >> >> Thanks for the updates. >> >> > [`COPY`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-copy.html) is used to >> > efficiently bulk load data into PostgreSQL, and with PostgreSQL 17 shows a >> > 2x performance improvement when loading large rows. >> >> The 2x thing mentioned by Jelte is for COPY TO rather than COPY FROM. >> So I think "exporting" or "sending large rows to the client" rather >> than "loading". >> >> There's also a stray "with" in that sentence. > > > Are you referring to the "with" in "and with PostgreSQL 17"? If so, it looks > valid to me.
Yes that one. It sounds wrong to me, but that's from a British English point of view. I'm continuing to learn the subtle differences with American English. Maybe this is one. It would make sense to me if it was "and with PostgreSQL 17, a 2x ...". From my point of view either "with" shouldn't be there or "shows" could be replaced with a comma. However, if you're ok with it, I'll say no more. I know this is well into your territory. David
