From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        brian.williams@mayalane.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off
 replaced
In-reply-to: <20191111131429.GA11285@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20191111131429.GA11285@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:14:29 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18648.1573482542.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:29:02 -0500
Message-ID: <18649.1573482542@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One problem with doing it that way is that the proposed parenthical
> comment partly duplicates the text immediately following it, so I'm no
> longer so sure that adding it is good; I think that changing "local
> additions" to "local additions and changes" might be sufficient, or
> maybe that is too obscure for novices?  For create_database.sgml it does
> seem to make a little more sense, but I'm not 100% there either.

I think we should stick to the wording we've agreed to be clearer.
Maybe do manage-ag.sgml like so:

     By instructing CREATE DATABASE to copy template0 instead of
     template1, you can create a pristine user database, that is one where
     no user-defined objects exist and where system objects have not been
     altered.  This is particularly handy ...

			regards, tom lane