Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better offreplaced - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better offreplaced
Date
Msg-id 20191107215010.GA8541@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better offreplaced  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better offreplaced  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better offreplaced  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-docs
On 2019-Nov-07, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> On Thu, Nov  7, 2019 at 07:55:22PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 7 Nov 2019, at 16:03, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> > > We could say "empty", which seems better suited than both "virgin" and
> > > "pristine" anyway.
> > 
> > empty is a lot better, but still isn't conveying the state of the database
> > without there being room for interpretation.  (My grasp of the english language
> > isn't enough to suggest a better alternative however).
> 
> I am thinking "pristine" would be a good word here.

But you would have to explain that a database created as a copy of
template1 may somehow not be pristine.  Maybe we should just use a
phrase that describes what we mean, something like "a database that
doesn't contain objects other than default system ones."

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better offreplaced
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_sender_timeout / wal_receiver_timeout - seconds ormilliseconds?