From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, nawaz@fast.au.fujitsu.com,
        pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: typo
In-reply-to: <20181126074238.GL1776@paquier.xyz>
References: <154319327168.1315.1846953598601966513@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20181126065643.GK1776@paquier.xyz>
 <CABUevEwvG6FEHhCnY1SNJmaYQDnqTnsSUx0SSWa--KDYYGsO6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <14d25c7a-2b03-d98e-5853-0a52ba64ad92@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20181126074238.GL1776@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:42:38 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3911.1543241658.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:14:18 -0500
Message-ID: <3912.1543241658@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:17:06AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> On 26/11/2018 08:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Are you sure that's right? To me the original wording of that sentence
>>> seems to convey the message properly, and the update done does not?

>> Yeah, I just found this on the committers list and I disagree with the
>> change as well.

> [... checking around ...]
> Hm.  I have read the sentence and the surroundings a couple of times
> before doing anything, and using an adverb looked clearer than the
> adjective.  Is an adjective more appropriate than an adverb here because
> it insists more on the fact that each row is involved?  Just trying to
> grab the difference.

I think that text is mine originally, and it was not a typo.  The meaning
of "table rows proper", in this case, is basically "table rows themelves".
The first dictionary I looked at gives this example:

PROPER
Adjective [ chiefly British ]
  ... [ postpositive ] Strictly so called; in its true form.
  "some of the dos and don'ts in espionage proper"

But I can see that a lot of people might not be familiar with that usage,
so I've got no objections to rewriting it more clearly --- any
suggestions?

			regards, tom lane