| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Shubham Khanna <khannashubham1197(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Assorted typo fixes |
| Date: | 2024-01-03 05:56:58 |
| Message-ID: | 133580.1704261418@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> 0010 is indeed the "correct" plural form for vertex I've known but
> "vertexes" is not wrong either. Perhaps that's worth changing on
> consistency grounds?
Yeah. A quick grep shows that we have 16 uses of "vertices" and
only this one of "vertexes". It's not really wrong, but +1 for
making it match the others.
> 8)</literal>, must be identical. It doesn't matter which representation
> you choose to be the canonical one, so long as two equivalent values with
> - different formattings are always mapped to the same value with the same
> + different formatting are always mapped to the same value with the same
> formatting.
> I am not sure about this one in 0011 though.. It also feels like this
> could be reworded completely.
I'd leave this alone, it's not wrong either. If you want to propose
a complete rewording, do so; but that's not "misspelling" territory.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-01-03 06:03:04 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-01-03 05:54:50 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |