[HACKERS] Comment typo in namespace.c

[Amit Langote]

Hi,

Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant.

Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't.
Nor does it drop the 's' and spell it 'non-extant' which may have been the
original intent.

Thanks,
Amit
diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/namespace.c b/src/backend/catalog/namespace.c
index 8b105fe..036eb37 100644
--- a/src/backend/catalog/namespace.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/namespace.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ RangeVarGetCreationNamespace(const RangeVar *newRelation)
  * As a side effect, this function acquires AccessShareLock on the target
  * namespace.  Without this, the namespace could be dropped before our
  * transaction commits, leaving behind relations with relnamespace pointing
- * to a no-longer-exstant namespace.
+ * to a no-longer-existant namespace.
  *
  * As a further side-effect, if the select namespace is a temporary namespace,
  * we mark the RangeVar as RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo in namespace.c

[Amit Langote]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> Amit Langote  writes:
>> Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant.
>> Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't.
>
> "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).

Thanks,
Amit


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo in namespace.c

[Tom Lane]

Amit Langote  writes:
> Attached fixes a typo: s/non-exstant/non-existant.
> Alternatively, it could be spelled as 'existent' but the patch doesn't.

"non-existant" is flat wrong, so if we're going to fix typos, let's
fix them to actually be English.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo in namespace.c

[Tom Lane]

Amit Langote  writes:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane  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".)

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Comment typo in namespace.c

[Amit Langote]

On 2016/01/07 1:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote  writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tom Lane  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