From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: typo in doc for "Miscellaneous Coding Conventions"
In-reply-to: <162131484867.24518.3990274826700661694@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <162131484867.24518.3990274826700661694@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 18 May 2021 05:14:08 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3079729.1621345947.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:52:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3079730.1621345947@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3079730.1621345947%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> small fix in description at [1] as follows

> -If that were not done interrupted code that's currently inspecting errno
> might see the wrong value.
> +If that was not done interrupted code that's currently inspecting errno
> might see the wrong value.

The existing text is perfectly good English; your change
makes it less so.  I'm afraid it's been too many years since
high school English for me to remember the exact grammatical
term for this, but "were not" is typical usage when stating
a contrary-to-fact hypothetical.

			regards, tom lane