> On 13 Nov 2023, at 12:20, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Nov-13, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> That's a fair point. It's sort of hard to refer back from the acronym list
>> though since we don't have a single Access Method section but instead one for
>> Indexes and one for Relations. In the attached diff I propose that we add a
>> glossary entry for Access Method (suggested better wording much appreciated)
>> which the acronym can refer to. Being such a core concept it doesn't seem like
>> a bad idea to explain it.
>
> +1 for a glossary entry.
>
> + Access methods are the interfaces which
> + <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> use in order to access relations
> + and indexes. This abstraction allows for adding support for new
> + types of tuple storage. For more information, see <xref linkend="indexam" />
> + and <xref linkend="tableam" />.
>
> We don't start the glossary definition with the term we're defining.
> For example, we say
> Atomicity
> The property of a transaction that ...
> we don't say
> Atomicity
> Atomicity is the property of ...
>
> So you would want your definition to be something like
> "Interfaces which PostgreSQL use to ..."
>
> I'd say "data in tables and indexes" rather than "relations and
> indexes", and "data storage" instead of "tuple storage".
>
> "For more information" should be its own <para>.
Thanks, that makes it a lot better. v2 with the above changes attached.
--
Daniel Gustafsson