Обсуждение: fix typos in comments

Hello!

Please see this patch with several typos and
mistakes in comments.

There are also typos in sgml files (duplicate "to"):
1. doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml, ln 619
 >> Logical decoding can be used to to build
2. doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_dumpall.sgml, ln 457
 >> Specifies the name of the database to connect
to to dump global

--
Dmitriy Olshevskiy

Hi,

Man, whoever invented these an vs. a rules... But then this patch made
me lookup the rules ;)

On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:

> diff --git a/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c b/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
> index 69ac077..1a43ab7 100644
> --- a/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
> +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ gimme_edge_table(PlannerInfo *root, Gene *tour1, Gene *tour2,
>   *      registers edge from city1 to city2 in input edge table
>   *
>   *      no assumptions about directionality are made;
> - *      therefor it is up to the calling routine to
> + *      therefore it is up to the calling routine to
>   *      call gimme_edge twice to make a bi-directional edge
>   *      between city1 and city2;
>   *      uni-directional edges are possible as well (just call
> gimme_edge

I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
still.

I left this out.

> diff --git a/src/include/access/attnum.h b/src/include/access/attnum.h
> index 82e811d..300b682 100644
> --- a/src/include/access/attnum.h
> +++ b/src/include/access/attnum.h
> @@ -29,14 +29,14 @@ typedef int16 AttrNumber;
>   */
>  /*
>   * AttributeNumberIsValid
> - *        True iff the attribute number is valid.
> + *        True if the attribute number is valid.
>   */
>  #define AttributeNumberIsValid(attributeNumber) \
>      ((bool) ((attributeNumber) != InvalidAttrNumber))
>  
>  /*
>   * AttrNumberIsForUserDefinedAttr
> - *        True iff the attribute number corresponds to an user defined attribute.
> + *        True if the attribute number corresponds to a user defined attribute.
>   */

Nope. Iff means "if and only if".

> diff --git a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
> index f4dc0db..b131412 100644
> --- a/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
> +++ b/src/include/storage/s_lock.h
> @@ -356,8 +356,8 @@ tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
>  /*
>   * Solaris has always run sparc processors in TSO (total store) mode, but
>   * linux didn't use to and the *BSDs still don't. So, be careful about
> - * acquire/release semantics. The CPU will treat superflous membars as NOPs,
> - * so it's just code space.
> + * acquire/release semantics. The CPU will treat superfluous membars as 
> + * NOPs, so it's just code space.
>   */
>  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET

superflous, err superfluous, trailing space removed.

I've pushed the rest. Thanks!

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:
>> - *      therefor it is up to the calling routine to
>> + *      therefore it is up to the calling routine to

> I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
> still.

Hm.  My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it
looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.

> Nope. Iff means "if and only if".

Right, "iff" is intentional here (and in many other places).  We've
discussed that before.
        regards, tom lane

On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2015-04-26 19:13:42 +0400, Dmitriy Olshevskiy wrote:
> >> - *      therefor it is up to the calling routine to
> >> + *      therefore it is up to the calling routine to
> 
> > I think both are actually legal? Yes therefore is more common, but
> > still.
> 
> Hm.  My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it
> looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.

Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
so I thought I'd leave it alone.  I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
for english, strangely enough.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm.  My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it
>> looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.

> Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
> so I thought I'd leave it alone.  I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
> for english, strangely enough.

Well, a quick grep says that our source tree contains 2 occurrences of
"therefor" (in pqcomm.c and geqo_erx.c), versus 700+ occurrences of
"therefore".  So I'd be inclined to standardize on the latter.
        regards, tom lane

On 2015-04-26 13:03:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2015-04-26 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm.  My dictionary says that "therefor" is archaic, but to my eye it
> >> looks just wrong.  Certainly no modern writer would spell it like that.
> 
> > Mine said that it's still common in some circles, particularly the law,
> > so I thought I'd leave it alone.  I don't have that much of a 'feeling'
> > for english, strangely enough.
> 
> Well, a quick grep says that our source tree contains 2 occurrences of
> "therefor" (in pqcomm.c and geqo_erx.c), versus 700+ occurrences of
> "therefore".  So I'd be inclined to standardize on the latter.

Done.

Greetings,

Andres Freund