Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off replaced
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, brian.williams@mayalane.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2019-11-07T21:50:10Z
Lists: pgsql-docs
On 2019-Nov-07, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 07:55:22PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 7 Nov 2019, at 16:03, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > We could say "empty", which seems better suited than both "virgin" and > > > "pristine" anyway. > > > > empty is a lot better, but still isn't conveying the state of the database > > without there being room for interpretation. (My grasp of the english language > > isn't enough to suggest a better alternative however). > > I am thinking "pristine" would be a good word here. But you would have to explain that a database created as a copy of template1 may somehow not be pristine. Maybe we should just use a phrase that describes what we mean, something like "a database that doesn't contain objects other than default system ones." -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Remove the word "virgins" for documentation
- 6ae4d271879b 13.0 landed