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(at)momjian(dot)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(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-05-07 01:44:06|
|Subject: pgsql: Document that it is the pgsql version we are matching forpsqlrc|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-05-06 12:11:05|
|Subject: pgsql: Revert typo fix 768c3affd44d1dcb4e43e2e006c642524714c2a4; I was|