Thread: pgsql: Fix psql doc typo.
Fix psql doc typo. Branch ------ master Details ------- http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/768c3affd44d1dcb4e43e2e006c642524714c2a4 Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Fix psql doc typo. Are you sure about this? Looked fine before. -- Thom
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:04:24PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > Fix psql doc typo. > > Are you sure about this? Looked fine before. The change is: - For some types of relation, <literal>\d</> shows additional information + For some types of relations, <literal>\d</> shows additional information Isn't 'types' plural so 'relations' has to be plural. I saw this while working on the release notes. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 05/05/2012 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:04:24PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: >> On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>> Fix psql doc typo. >> Are you sure about this? Looked fine before. > The change is: > > - For some types of relation,<literal>\d</> shows additional information > + For some types of relations,<literal>\d</> shows additional information > > Isn't 'types' plural so 'relations' has to be plural. I saw this while > working on the release notes. Yes, "types" is plural, but that doesn't mean that "relation" is necessarily wrong here, AFAIK. I don't see why you can't have plural types of a singular category. If you can cite a rule of English grammar to the contrary I'd like to see it. cheers andrew
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:28:59PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/05/2012 12:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 05:04:24PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > >>On 5 May 2012 17:00, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > >>>Fix psql doc typo. > >>Are you sure about this? Looked fine before. > >The change is: > > > > - For some types of relation,<literal>\d</> shows additional information > > + For some types of relations,<literal>\d</> shows additional information > > > >Isn't 'types' plural so 'relations' has to be plural. I saw this while > >working on the release notes. > > Yes, "types" is plural, but that doesn't mean that "relation" is > necessarily wrong here, AFAIK. I don't see why you can't have plural > types of a singular category. If you can cite a rule of English > grammar to the contrary I'd like to see it. I was just guessing by how it sounded. Reverted. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +