| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "matematica(dot)a3k(at)gmail(dot)com" <matematica(dot)a3k(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Minor] Wording in "2.2. Concepts" |
| Date: | 2026-09-28 19:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ-vbOs8LFg6o=NjXUCH+t78cZn8YhFtnWFSU7zqfdMtw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Monday, September 28, 2026, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/tutorial-concepts.html
> Description:
>
> Where it says "A more modern development is the object-oriented database."
> it should say "Another development is the object-oriented database.".
>
> "more modern" seems to imply "better" which may not be the case. "Another"
> would be more accurate in my opinion.
>
>
It does seem a bit odd to call something modern/recent but to not update
the section for 20+ years. I don’t like this specific change though, it’s
not obviously better than just leaving the status quo (and it doesn’t read
well). Modern can just mean “more recent”.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-09-28 19:35:04 | Re: [Minor] Conflicting sentence in "2.4. Populating a Table With Rows" |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-09-28 19:25:13 | Re: [Minor] Wording in "2.2. Concepts" |