Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [doc] fix a potential grammer mistake
Date: 2022-08-03 13:56:46
Message-ID: 2965502.1659535006@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> I don't think these "were"s are wrong but arguably changing them to
> "have" helps non-native speakers (like myself), as it doesn't change the
> meaning significantly as far as I can see.

I think it does --- it changes the meaning from passive to active.
I don't necessarily object to rewriting these sentences more broadly,
but I don't think "have issued" is the correct phrasing.

Possibly "The user issued ..." would work.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-08-03 13:59:40 Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-08-03 13:46:44 Re: automatically generating node support functions