Re: 8.4 release notes proof reading 1/2

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 release notes proof reading 1/2
Date: 2009-03-27 02:25:09
Message-ID: 200903270225.n2R2P9509889@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> >> - "Previously EXPLAIN VERBOSE output an internal representation of the
> >> query plan" -> s/output/outputs/ ?
> >
> > The existing wording seems correct.
>
> I think Bruce's phrasing was in the past tense. It's a bit weird
> because the verb form of "output" is a relatively recent invention and
> the past tense isn't well settled. Dictionaries list both "outputted"
> and "output" as past tense forms. Personally I think Bruce's "output"
> sounds better than the alternative "outputted".
>
> Perhaps "had output" would be clearer?

Excellent idea; done.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-27 02:26:35 Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-27 02:23:47 Re: typedefs for indent