Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 24/09/15 22:41, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 24 September 2015 at 11:33, Gavin Flower 
<gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz 
<mailto:gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:


An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm
working through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with
gender pronouns when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in
one place and "he/she" in another!):

   "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
   full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
   full query for their queries."

Can I quietly suggest "​Users with superuser pemissions can always see 
the full query​, while regular users will only see the full query for 
their own queries."?


Geoff

By all means say it quietly!  :-)

But I was simply trying to change it into Gender Appropriate form, 
rather improve it in other aspects.


However, your rephrasing is better still!


-Gavin


--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

An example from a book on PostgreSQL server programming that I'm working 
through (Note that it is obviously awkward to write with gender pronouns 
when gender is irrelevant, note the "he she" in one place and "he/she" 
in another!):


   "If the user is a superuser, then he she has permission to see the
   full query. If the user is a regular user, he/she will only see the
   full query for his/her queries."

Written in 'Gender Appropriate' style (only refer to gender when it is 
relevant):


   "If the user is a superuser, then they have permission to see the
   full query. If the user is a regular user, they will only see the
   full query for their queries."

I think the second version is easier to read - and in this case, shorter!


-Gavin



--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 09:28, Albe Laurenz >wrote:


Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Erik Rijkers > wrote:
>> I think this compulsive 'he'-avoiding is making the text worse.
>>
>>
>> -  environment variable); any user can make such a change
for his session.
>> +  environment variable); any user can make such a change
for their session.
>
> -1. It seems fine to me.

(Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker.)

Using the pronoun of the third person plural as a replacement for
"his or her"
has become widely used, at least in the U.S., and the OED condones
that use:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they


Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I agree 
that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current state of 
usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The abuse of 
"literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now listed in the OED) is 
a prime example.


As an Englishman ​I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps 
our American cousins might disagree though.


WRT the second, it probably doesn't help that "might not be the same 
as the database user that is to be connect as" is incorrect anyway - 
it should perhaps be "that is to be connect*ed *as" (although I still 
find the construction clumsy).


Geoff

I am an Englishman.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy & there is 
no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!


Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is 
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the female 
category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!



Cheers,
Gavin



--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use gender-neutral language in documentation

[Gavin Flower]

On 22/09/15 22:17, Geoff Winkless wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 10:52, Gavin Flower 
<gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz 
<mailto:gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz>>wrote:


On 22/09/15 21:33, Geoff Winkless wrote:

​ ​
Without wanting to get into a grammar war, ​I'm not so sure I
agree that it "condones" it. Dictionaries reflect the current
state of usage, they don't act as arbiters of correctness. The
abuse of "literally" as an emphasiser (which usage is now
listed in the OED) is a prime example.

I would prefer "his or her" over "their". Perhaps our American
cousins might disagree though.

I prefer "their" rather than "his or her", it is less clumsy &
there is no point in specifying gender unless it is relevant!


I agree in that I prefer "their" in informal speech; however in a 
formal document I would find it sloppy.​ I don't think "his or her" is 
inherently clumsy; m

aybe I'm just showing my age.​

Besides, some people are neither, or their biological gender is
ambiguous - so a few people fit into neither the male nor the
female category (depending on precise definitions, about 0.5%)!


My understanding is that most intersex (and certainly all trans) 
people would identify with one or the other, and even those who don't 
select exclusively identify with a mix of both (and would therefore 
still be covered by "his or her", no?) although I don't pretend to be 
an expert.


Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the controversy by actually 
rewording into the plural, where possible?


So

"any user can make such a change for his session."

becomes

"Users can make such a change for their individual sessions"

or similar?

Geoff
To me, the key things is NOT to specify gender, unless it is relevant - 
and I don't think gender is relevant in describing how to use a database.


I was using "Gender Appropriate" language long before the Politically 
Correct craze started (over 50 years ago)!  I was told references to 
"he" in rules included females, which I thought was daft!



Cheers,
Gavin


--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.

[Gavin Flower]

On 03/02/14 09:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:

Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ?

+1


If the planning was ever made into a parallel process, then 'elapsed 
time' would be less than the 'processor time'.  So what does 'Execution 
time' mean?


Can I assume:
'Total runtime' is 'elapsed time'
and
'Execution time' is 'processor time'.

In a parallel implementation, one would likely want both.

Possible this is not an issue now, and I'm thinking to far ahead!


Cheers,
Gavin


--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers