Re: Installation instructions vs binaries

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Installation instructions vs binaries
Date: 2020-09-08 14:50:59
Message-ID: 1767183.1599576659@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> I think we're talking about a different repetitiveness. If I apply Davids
> suggestion to that patch, then instead of:

> + <para>
> + If you are using a pre-packaged version
> + of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>, it may well have a specific
> + convention for where to place the data directory, and it may also
> + provide a script for creating the data directory. In that case you

> It would say something like
> Pre-packaged versions of PostgreSQL may have a specific convention....
> (rest unchanged).

[ shrug... ] Well, I wrote that text, so naturally I like it the way
it is ;-). Perhaps a neutral observer would like the shorter version
better, not sure. But I think pluralizing "versions" is going to make
it harder to construct the rest of the sentence non-ambiguously.
You really only want to be talking about one data directory location
and one wrapper script.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2020-09-08 15:05:10 Re: Installation instructions vs binaries
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2020-09-08 14:33:42 Re: Installation instructions vs binaries