On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 22:24 -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> In a number of places the docs read "only relevant",
> this patch reverses this to read "relevant only".
committed
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.po
At 2012-10-17 09:19:58 -0400, and...@dunslane.net wrote:
>
> This doesn't appear to correct any ambiguity, nor any grammatical
> error.
FWIW, it's quite standard and uncontroversial "good writing" advice to
push "only" as far right as it can go. It does correct an ambiguity,
but in this case the a
On 10/16/2012 11:24 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
Hi,
As long as I'm sending in trivial fixes
to the docs here's a bit of wording that's been bugging me.
In a number of places the docs read "only relevant",
this patch reverses this to read "relevant only".
I believe this reads better because it qui
Hi,
As long as I'm sending in trivial fixes
to the docs here's a bit of wording that's been bugging me.
In a number of places the docs read "only relevant",
this patch reverses this to read "relevant only".
I believe this reads better because it quickly
answers the question "is what?" with "is r
