On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 8:17 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 8:16 PM David G. Johnston > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a mind to walk through the readmes and sgmls but its going to be > in chunks. Here's one for the readme for pg_plan_advice with a couple of > preliminary sgml changes. > > While I'm grateful for the feedback, I feel like you tend to suggest a > lot of edits that seem like they're just substituting your > idiosyncratic preferences for mine Yeah, some of these end up being mostly stylistic. Though I do try to limit them to ones where I see inconsistency or the style I'm reading just doesn't resonate with me. I usually point out the ones that are IMO material, versus just something that tripped me up while I was reading, but failed to do so here. I do need to work in a way to better annotate/comment on the why of these. Any suggestions for a better flow or feedback format? Inline comments wrapped in sgml comments? Or just copy the diff into the email body and inline comment there - leaving the original diff attachment as-is? > - advice" mini-language. It is intended to allow stabilization of plan > choices > + advice" domain specific language (DSL). It is intended to allow > stabilization of plan choices > > There's a debate to be had about whether it's better to say > mini-language or domain specific language here, but it's hard for me > to decide which is better if all you provide is a diff replacing A > with B. I definitely think it's worse to write (DSL) here. There is no > point in defining an acronym if we're never going to use it anywhere. > > This was truly just a "have you considered using this terminology instead" kind of prompt. The acronym would have been useful when going an replacing the other uses of mini-language that I left alone since I hadn't myself decided which one was better. I didn't do my usual email recap on this first patch which is my bad. I corrected that with the others. David J.
