Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information
Date
Msg-id i2qbddc86151004281039k3e62cedeg67b50e946da0ecef@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-committers
On 28 April 2010 18:31, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Thom Brown wrote:
> Just a couple, both in the same file:
>
> doc/src/sgml/perform.sgml - s/arcive_mode/archive_mode/ and

Thanks!

> s/afterwards/afterward/

Aren't they interchangeable? Searching the web for "afterward
afterwrads" turns up various discussion forums, and most seem to
consider them both correct. And we use "afterwards" elsewhere in the docs.


Fair enough.  I assumed American English was used throughout documentation, and they tend to omit the 's', but I agree.

Thom

pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Introduce wal_level GUC to explicitly control if information
Next
From: tgl@postgresql.org (Tom Lane)
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Minor editorializing on pg_controldata and pg_resetxlog: adjust