Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information
Date: 2010-04-28 17:38:27
Message-ID: 303.1272476307@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> s/afterwards/afterward/

> Aren't they interchangeable? Searching the web for "afterward
> afterwrads" turns up various discussion forums, and most seem to
> consider them both correct. And we use "afterwards" elsewhere in the docs.

... including in some pre-existing places in the same file. I think it's
okay as-is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2010-04-28 17:39:20 Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-04-28 17:35:35 pgsql: pg_controldata needs #define FRONTEND, same as pg_resetxlog.