[rosser]

Submitter, or a moderator, please edit the title to re-add the word "How". That's done automatically, but sometimes it's wrong. It's especially so here.

Also, this remains as fantastic an article on PostgreSQL's MVCC nature as it was previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15027870

[Deimorz]

Also, add "(2017)".

[dmitryminkovsky]

Thanks, done

[dmitryminkovsky]

Thanks. Missed that.

[draw_down]

I've noticed that too. In what cases is that useful? It seems unnecessary and actively harmful at times, like in this case.

[Deimorz]

It's a very common style of headlines recently, and a lot of the time you can remove the "How" without changing the meaning. For example, if I look down The Verge's recent posts, the first one starting with "How" is "How sampling and streaming are changing the future of music" [1]. Titling that "Sampling and streaming are changing the future of music" works fine.

I don't know that it's particularly useful most of the time, it's usually just unnecessary. An example where it actually should have been removed that I remember was this article on The Guardian a while back: "Suburb in the sky: how Jakartans built an entire village on top of a mall" [2]. There's nothing in the article at all about how they built it. It's just a trendy headline style for some reason, and gets used even in cases where it doesn't apply, like that one.

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870347/sampling-streami...

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/aug/05/suburb-in-the...

[kbenson]

> In what cases is that useful?

Edit: whoops, I thought you were replying to the request to add 2017 to the title.

If you've possibly already read it and are wondering if it's a repeat, if you have knowledge that the topic has had changes since then which might make it less accurate, and any number of other things.

In the end, it's more information, if people want to assume something negative about it, I feel that's on them (as long as the information shown is accurate).