On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> BTW, is it just me, or is the terminology "number filtered" pretty >>> confusing/ambiguous in itself? It doesn't seem at all clear to me >>> whether that's the number of rows passed by the filter condition or >>> the number of rows rejected. Perhaps "nremoved" would be clearer. > >> I think filtered is pretty clear and like it... removed sounds like >> you deleted something. > > Well, you did delete something, no? There are rows that aren't in the > output that would have been there if not for the filter condition.
What I mean to say is that I fear that removed would give the impression that some modification had been made to the database. Perhaps that's silly, but it's what came to mind. > And, btw, one person thinking it's clear doesn't make it so. That's why I said "I think" rather than "Any fool should be able to see that". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
