| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: minor doc / usage fixes |
| Date: | 2003-01-28 21:58:31 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301282041400.789-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway writes:
> If you'd like to argue that including a period is incorrect, that's fair
> enough -- but please make that kind of policy consistent: other
> sentences of the same form in that document include a period ("Include
> large objects in dump.", "Dump data for table only.", etc.)
I'm not particularly attached to either format. I just vaguely recall
that I made a conscious effort to keep this distinction when I wrote the
text in question, and now I was wondering why someone else made a
conscious effort to do it differently.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Bosma | 2003-01-29 00:16:07 | plpython: fix for improperly handled NULL arguments in prepared plans |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-01-28 19:44:28 | fix regression in .pgpass handling |