Subject: Typo

From: PG Doc comments form <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 20:52:25 +0000

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/history.html
Description:

Hi Folks, thank you for maintaining this great technical resource, which
I've only recently started to use.

There appears to be a typo, here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/history.html#:~:text=Postgres95%20code%20was%20completely%20ANSI%20C.
A word or two should be added between 'completely' and 'ANSI C', such as
're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such.

Thanks, Peter Spung | Raleigh, NC, USA

---

From: Michael Paquier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 07:32:22 +0900

> 're-written in', or 're-coded using', or some such.

This is the current sentence, and it sounds kind of OK to me, FWIW:
"Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.
--
Michael

---

From: "David G. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 16:44:26 -0700

> "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.
I agree with the OP, that is missing something.  Maybe:

Between the 4.2 release and the release of Postgres95 the code was made to
completely adhere to ANSI C and the size was reduced by 25%.

David J.

---

From: Laurenz Albe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 06:02:27 +0200

> "Postgres95 code was completely ANSI C and trimmed in size by 25%.

That uses "ANSI C" as an adjective, which I think is sloppy wording
(even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between
classes of words).

How about: "... was written completely in ANSI C ..."

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 00:25:27 -0400

> (even though English is somewhat relaxed about the distinction between

Yeah, it's not great English, but it's not awful English either;
just a rather telegraphic (abbreviated) style.

Here's the thing: at this point, this documentation is itself a
historical artifact.  git excavation dates the current wording to
8baa8fcf4 of 1999-06-21, and that was just a small adjustment of
c8cfb0cea of 1998-03-01, and it seems likely that that was pulled
verbatim from some older source.

So I'm disinclined to change it on grounds of "I think the grammar
is a bit shaky".  It is what it is.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: "David G. Johnston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 21:35:55 -0700

> is a bit shaky".  It is what it is.

Agreed.  Besides, after a couple of more passes it grew on me, once I
filled in the missing “compared to what” sufficiently.

David J.