Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 18:50:10 -0300
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
Subject: Re: The word "virgin" used incorrectly and probably better off
 replaced
Message-ID: <20191107215010.GA8541@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20191107212750.GB487@momjian.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

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