Re: Installation instructions vs binaries

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> 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.
>

Yeah, I guess it can work either way. I don't feel too strongly about that
one, so I'll leave it to David to argue for that standpoint if he thinks it
applies here as well.

That leaves just the part of adding the actual new chapter of my patch.
PFA. Thoughts on that?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>