Re: 8.4 release notes proof reading 1/2

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 release notes proof reading 1/2
Date: 2009-03-27 02:22:07
Message-ID: 4136ffa0903261922j52413d71ked85af39bb422136@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> - "Previously EXPLAIN VERBOSE output an internal representation of the
>> query plan" -> s/output/outputs/ ?
>
> The existing wording seems correct.

I think Bruce's phrasing was in the past tense. It's a bit weird
because the verb form of "output" is a relatively recent invention and
the past tense isn't well settled. Dictionaries list both "outputted"
and "output" as past tense forms. Personally I think Bruce's "output"
sounds better than the alternative "outputted".

Perhaps "had output" would be clearer?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-27 02:23:47 Re: typedefs for indent
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-03-27 02:11:31 Re: 8.4 open items list