| From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake |
| Date: | 2022-08-03 15:14:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAEG8a3L+5v=StnyPc1L2Q4onrNcD622YD-uKsSo-tn0hV6=YhQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Attachment is a corrected version based on Tom's suggestion.
Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 9:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> > I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
> > "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
> > meaning significantly as far as I can see.
>
> I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active.
> I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly,
> but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing.
>
> Possibly "The user issued ..." would work.
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-doc-rewrite-some-comments-to-make-them-more-precise.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-08-03 15:30:50 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-08-03 14:53:06 | Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade |