pgsql: Fix psql doc typo.
Fix psql doc typo.
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/768c3affd44d1dcb4e43e2e006c642524714c2a4
Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Fix psql doc typo.
Are you sure about this? Looked fine before.
--
Thom
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:04:24PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Fix psql doc typo.
Are you sure about this? Looked fine before.
The change is:
- For some types of relation, <literal>\d</> shows additional information
+ For some types of relations, <literal>\d</> shows additional informationIsn't 'types' plural so 'relations' has to be plural. I saw this while
working on the release notes.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 05/05/2012 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:04:24PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Fix psql doc typo.
Are you sure about this? Looked fine before.
The change is:
- For some types of relation,<literal>\d</> shows additional information + For some types of relations,<literal>\d</> shows additional informationIsn't 'types' plural so 'relations' has to be plural. I saw this while
working on the release notes.
Yes, "types" is plural, but that doesn't mean that "relation" is
necessarily wrong here, AFAIK. I don't see why you can't have plural
types of a singular category. If you can cite a rule of English grammar
to the contrary I'd like to see it.
cheers
andrew
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:28:59PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 05/05/2012 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:04:24PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Fix psql doc typo.
Are you sure about this? Looked fine before.
The change is:
- For some types of relation,<literal>\d</> shows additional information + For some types of relations,<literal>\d</> shows additional informationIsn't 'types' plural so 'relations' has to be plural. I saw this while
working on the release notes.Yes, "types" is plural, but that doesn't mean that "relation" is
necessarily wrong here, AFAIK. I don't see why you can't have plural
types of a singular category. If you can cite a rule of English
grammar to the contrary I'd like to see it.
I was just guessing by how it sounded. Reverted.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +