From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 08:52:48 |
Message-ID: | A741B80F-2C56-4F3B-9E9B-37A09BEA9252@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:50, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Nov-07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:55:22PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 16:03, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>>> We could say "empty", which seems better suited than both "virgin" and
>>>> "pristine" anyway.
>>>
>>> empty is a lot better, but still isn't conveying the state of the database
>>> without there being room for interpretation. (My grasp of the english language
>>> isn't enough to suggest a better alternative however).
>>
>> I am thinking "pristine" would be a good word here.
>
> But you would have to explain that a database created as a copy of
> template1 may somehow not be pristine. Maybe we should just use a
> phrase that describes what we mean, something like "a database that
> doesn't contain objects other than default system ones."
Agreed. I like your suggestion, or the inverse of it: "a database without any
user defined objects".
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-08 13:10:14 | Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off replaced |
Previous Message | PG Doc comments form | 2019-11-08 06:43:43 | tables in the DB is not available after pg_restore. |