| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, brian(dot)williams(at)mayalane(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off replaced |
| Date: | 2019-11-08 15:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1417.1573226360@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm. Maybe we can say "pristine database" and then add this explanation
> in a parenthical comment:
> This is particularly handy when restoring a
> <literal>pg_dump</literal> dump: the dump script should be restored in a
> pristine database (one where no user-defined objects exist and where
> system objects have not been altered), to ensure that one recreates
> the correct contents of the dumped database, without conflicting
> with objects that might have been added to
> <literal>template1</literal> later on.
So the patch becomes s/virgin/pristine/g plus add a parenthetical
definition for the first use? Works for me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2019-11-08 15:37:18 | Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off replaced |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-08 15:08:52 | Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off replaced |