On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> - "Previously EXPLAIN VERBOSE output an internal representation of the >> query plan" -> s/output/outputs/ ? > > The existing wording seems correct.
I think Bruce's phrasing was in the past tense. It's a bit weird because the verb form of "output" is a relatively recent invention and the past tense isn't well settled. Dictionaries list both "outputted" and "output" as past tense forms. Personally I think Bruce's "output" sounds better than the alternative "outputted". Perhaps "had output" would be clearer? -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
