On 2016/01/07 1:03, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> "non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's >>> fix them to actually be English. > >> So, non-existent? non-extant? I seems to me like an 's' accidentally >> sneaked in when the author of the comment tried to write the latter >> spelling. But the former sounds more familiar (at least to me). > > "existent" is a word according to my dictionary, so "non-existent" > is fine. "extant" is also a word but it's less common and doesn't > really mean the same thing --- it carries a connotation of "still > in existence, surviving". So you might say "Stonebraker's papers > about Postgres from the '80s are still extant". "Existent" just > means "in existence" without any particular implication about time > passing, so it's probably what is meant in most cases. > > (Actually, in the particular context here, I guess "extant" would > be sensible, but it would be rather hi-falutin' usage. I'd go > with "existent".)
Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
