On 2015-04-26 13:03:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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
