Fixing various typos in comments and docs
This patch fixes various typos I've found, most of them from recent
commits. I think none should be controversial except perhaps
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml
@@ -801,7 +801,7 @@ psql --username=postgres --file=script.sql postgres
</para> <para>
- Because not all statistics are not transferred by
+ Because not all statistics are transferred by
<command>pg_upgrade</command>, you will be instructed to run a
command to
regenerate that information at the end of the upgrade. You might
need to
set connection parameters to match your new cluster.Separately from this, I have been working on some tooling to flag typos in
new commits. Is that something we'd ever want to automate?
Regards,
Jacob
Attachments:
v01_fix_typos.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=v01_fix_typos.patchDownload+9-9
On 3 Mar 2025, at 01:39, Jacob Brazeal <jacob.brazeal@gmail.com> wrote:
This patch fixes various typos I've found, most of them from recent commits.
Thanks, I've applied the fixes for typos introduced during the v18 cycle. I
did leave a few out from your patch though:
- Because not all statistics are not transferred by + Because not all statistics are transferred by
I skipped this as it changes the sentence completely rather than fix a typo.
It should perhaps still be fixed but not as part of a typo cleanup.
- * Many thanks to Adisak Pochanayon, who's article about SLZ
+ * Many thanks to Adisak Pochanayon, whose article about SLZ
This particular case is Jan's personal writing and not documentation so I don't
think we should change that. The other instance of "who's" is probably a
correct fix but since that's an old typo it would require backpatching to avoid
risking conflicts for backpatching surrounding code so I left that one out as
well.Separately from this, I have been working on some tooling to flag typos in new commits. Is that something we'd ever want to automate?
Existing spellcheckers for code usually have quite high rates of false
positives, so any automated tooling would have to avoid that to not become a
burden rather than a help. Personally I think it's something which is best
suited for manual processing with manual review of findings, much like static
code analysis.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
Thank you! I had completely forgotten about this, I appreciate that you dug
this one out of the archives!
Existing spellcheckers for code usually have quite high rates of false
positives, so any automated tooling would have to avoid that to not
become a
burden rather than a help. Personally I think it's something which is
best
suited for manual processing with manual review of findings, much like
static
code analysis.
Sounds good.