Alvaro Herrera writes:
> One problem with doing it that way is that the proposed parenthical
> comment partly duplicates the text immediately following it, so I'm no
> longer so sure that adding it is good; I think that changing "local
> additions" to "local additions and changes" might be
On 2019-Nov-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-Nov-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So the patch becomes s/virgin/pristine/g plus add a parenthetical
> >> definition for the first use? Works for me.
>
> > Well, there are three uses of the word "virgin". The first is for
> >
Everyone,
Thank you for the attention paid to this.
Brian
> On Nov 8, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2019, at 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> So the patch becomes s/virgin/pristine/g plus add a parenthetical
>> definition for the first use? Works for me.
>
>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Nov-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So the patch becomes s/virgin/pristine/g plus add a parenthetical
>> definition for the first use? Works for me.
> Well, there are three uses of the word "virgin". The first is for
> "virgin user", and the patch turns that into just
On 2019-Nov-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Hmm. Maybe we can say "pristine database" and then add this explanation
> > in a parenthical comment:
>
> > This is particularly handy when restoring a
> > pg_dump dump: the dump script should be restored in a
> >
> On 8 Nov 2019, at 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> So the patch becomes s/virgin/pristine/g plus add a parenthetical
> definition for the first use? Works for me.
Agreed.
cheers ./daniel
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Hmm. Maybe we can say "pristine database" and then add this explanation
> in a parenthical comment:
> This is particularly handy when restoring a
> pg_dump dump: the dump script should be restored in a
> pristine database (one where no user-defined objects
On 2019-Nov-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Here's a proposed patch.
>
> I don't like this wording much, because "no user-defined objects"
> is not a sufficient specification of what we are talking about.
> You need to also capture the property that none of the system-
>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Here's a proposed patch.
I don't like this wording much, because "no user-defined objects"
is not a sufficient specification of what we are talking about.
You need to also capture the property that none of the system-
defined objects have been altered. Now that we
> On 8 Nov 2019, at 14:10, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2019-Nov-08, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> Agreed. I like your suggestion, or the inverse of it: "a database without
>> any
>> user defined objects".
>
> Here's a proposed patch.
+1, LGTM
cheers ./daniel
On 2019-Nov-08, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Agreed. I like your suggestion, or the inverse of it: "a database without any
> user defined objects".
Here's a proposed patch.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training &
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 06:50:10PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera 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
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > We could say "empty", which seems better
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 wrote:
> > > We could say "empty", which seems better suited than both "virgin" and
> > > "pristine" anyway.
> >
> > empty is a lot better,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:55:22PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 7 Nov 2019, at 16:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > because we have not explained what a "virgin database" is.
>
> I think this is the key observation.
>
> > We could say "empty", which seems better suited than both
> On 7 Nov 2019, at 16:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> because we have not explained what a "virgin database" is.
I think this is the key observation.
> We could say "empty", which seems better suited than both "virgin" and
> "pristine" anyway.
empty is a lot better, but still isn't conveying
On 2019-Nov-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/manage-ag-templatedbs.html
> Description:
>
> The use of the word virgin as an adjective is incorrect here and also an
> anachronism. It is better off replaced with the word pristine - quotes
> unnecessary.
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/manage-ag-templatedbs.html
Description:
The use of the word virgin as an adjective is incorrect here and also an
anachronism. It is better off replaced with the word pristine - quotes
17 matches
Mail list logo
