maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Ian Gilfillan <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Responding to the portion of the thread extracted below, "INSERT, INSERT 
.. SELECT don't increment partitions" is not meaningless, but both 
"INSERT, INSERT .. SELECT don't increment the number of partitions" and 
"INSERT, INSERT .. SELECT don't auto-create partitions" are better.

It comes down to emphasis. Is the emphasis on the automatic creation, or 
on the increase in the number? From what I can understand of the topic, 
the emphasis most rests on automatic creation, so I'd go with "INSERT, 
INSERT .. SELECT don't auto-create partitions"



> +--echo # INSERT, INSERT .. SELECT don't increment partitions
>
> it's not really "increment", better say "don't auto-create"
>
>
> > > > Actually I like "increment" more. "Auto-create" overcomplicates phrases:
> > > >
> > > > --echo # Increment from 3 to 5
> > > > --echo # Increment from 3 to 6, manual names, LOCK TABLES
> > > > --echo # Multiple increments in single command
> > > > Besides "increment" is correct because PARTITIONS number is incremented.
> > > Sure.
> > > "Increment the number of partitions", this is fine.
> > > "Auto create partitions" is also fine.
> > > "Increment partitions" is meaningless.
> > It is obvious from the context that we are talking about the number,
> > not partitions themselves. Treat "partitions" as PARTITIONS keyword
> > and the increment is attached to a number right next to it. That's
> > quite a sense, isn't it?
> No, I think it's a meaningless combination of words.
> But let's ask native speakers, shall we?