On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:36:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:59:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Gavin Flower
> > > <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> > >> /postgres-9.1/share/doc/html/manage-ag-overview.html
> > >> In the folowing partagrasoh 'recommendable' should be 'recommended'.
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >> Databases are physically separated and access
> > >> control is managed at the connection level. If one PostgreSQL server
> > >> instance is to house projects or users that should be separate and for the
> > >> most part unaware of each other, it is therefore recommendable to put them
> > >> into separate databases. If the projects or users are interrelated and
> > >> should be able to use each other's resources, they should be put in the same
> > >> database but possibly into separate schemas.
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >
> > > maybe it's because i'm not a natural english speaker but this sounds
> > > like we are recommended to put the users in another database. probably
> > > it is refering to the user's resources... maybe we can make it more
> > > explicit?
> >
> > The only thing that seems weird about it to me is that recommendable
> > is a word that is almost never used by native English speakers. Or at
> > least not the native English speakers I know.
>
> I did some research on this and this was the best description I could
> find was:
>
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=693689
>
> If you want to suggest others use it, it is recommended. If you want to
> suggest others tell their friends and aquaintances to use it, it would
> be recommendable.
>
> I think all doc mentions of 'recommendable' should be changed to
> 'recommended'.
Done with the attached patch, backpatched to 9.2.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
