On 2015-04-26 13:03:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hm. My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it > >> looks just wrong. Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that. > > > Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law, > > so I thought I'd leave it alone. I don't have that much of a 'feeling' > > for english, strangely enough. > > Well, a quick grep says that our source tree contains 2 occurrences of > "therefor" (in pqcomm.c and geqo_erx.c), versus 700+ occurrences of > "therefore". So I'd be inclined to standardize on the latter.
Done. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
