Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jul13, 2011, at 17:44 , Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> OK, I went with this wording, using "lock object is on" terminology. > >> Applied patch attached --- adjustments welcomed. > > > > I think you misunderstood the suggestion. This is not an improvement, > > it's just more confusion. > > FWIW, I agree. First, "lock object" seems redundant - you might just as > well say simply "lock". This is different from "locked object" - there, > the noun "object" servers as a dummy that gives the adjective "locked" > something to refer to.
I would personally prefer "lock" rather than "lock object". > Also, it now sounds as if we were talking about the storage > location of the lock (as an entity in itself) in some of the sentences. > > Here's an example > > "Page number within the relation, or null if the lock object > is not on a tuple or relation page". > > To me at least, that sounds as if the lock might somehow be stored > on a "relation page". > > Maybe "on" is still too generic. What if we said "protects" instead? > That makes the intended relationship between the lock and the > tuple/relation/... much clearer. We'd then say > > (A) > "Protected page number within the relation, or null if the lock > does not protect a tuple or relation page". > > Another possibility is to make the relationship clearer by adding > the adjective "locked" before the locked thing, as in > > (B) > "Locked page number within the relation, or null if the lock > is not on a tuple or relation page". Yes, I like this --- putting the "Locked at the front". The old code says things like "Page number within the relation" which is kind of generic. > > The latter also works "lock .. on .. " with > "locked object ... is ...", i.e. > > (C) > "Locked page number within the relation, or null if the locked object > is not a tuple or relation page". > > We could also get rid of the noun completely by saying > > (D) > "Locked page number within the relation, or null if it isn't > a tuple or relation page that is locked". > > I personally slightly favor (D). Me too. Others? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers