Re: Patch to document base64 encoding

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch to document base64 encoding
Date: 2019-03-06 18:30:16
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1903061913540.24790@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Attached: doc_base64_v7.patch

Patch applies cleanly, doc compiles, navigation tested and ok.

"... section 6.8" -> "... Section 6.8" (capital S).

"The string and the binary encode and decode functions..." sentence looks
strange to me, especially with the English article that I do not really
master, so maybe it is ok. I'd have written something more
straightforward, eg: "Functions encode and decode support the following
encodings:", and also I'd use a direct "Function <...>decode</...> ..."
rather than "The <function>decode</function> function ..." (twice).

Maybe I'd use the exact same grammatical structure for all 3 cases,
starting with "The <>whatever</> encoding converts bla bla bla" instead of
varying the sentences.

Otherwise, all explanations look both precise and useful to me.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Schneider 2019-03-06 18:38:10 Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-03-06 18:10:43 Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling