Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 18:05:16 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
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: <20191107230516.GF487@momjian.us>
References: <20191107212750.GB487@momjian.us>
 <20191107215010.GA8541@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191107215010.GA8541@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov  7, 2019 at 06:50:10PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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."

True.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +