Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > Thanks for taking a look at this. I don't want my attempt to steer things
> > in a more conservative direction to result in the original complaint not
> > being fixed, so how about considering just this change to start.sgml for
> > now:
>
> > <para>
> > Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
> > - for your use. He should have told you what the name of your
> > + for your use and told you what the name of your
> > database is. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
> > to the next section.
> > </para>
>
> That would work, but I still wonder why we need that second sentence
> at all.
+1
Possibly, your site administrator has already created a database
+ for your use. In that case you can omit this step and skip ahead
to the next section.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
