| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
| Cc: | CharSyam <charsyam(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Typo patch |
| Date: | 2015-05-20 17:05:20 |
| Message-ID: | 24243.1432141520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> Thanks, committed. Except for this one:
> - * *Only* a frozen-for-read tape can be seeked.
> + * *Only* a frozen-for-read tape can be sought.
> It's true that the past tense of "seek" is "sought", but it feels a bit
> weird to me in this context. This is a comment on a function called
> "<blah blah>seek", and it's not clear to me that it should conjugate
> like the normal "seek" verb.
I agree that "sought" is not the word to use here, but the existing
wording isn't very good English either. Perhaps "Seeking is only allowed
on frozen-for-read tapes"?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2015-05-20 17:09:05 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-20 16:54:06 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |