Similarly to what was done in
04539e73f, we standardized on SQL being
pronounced "es-que-ell" rather than "sequel" in our documentation.
Two inconsistencies have crept in during the v15 cycle. The others
existed before but were missed in
04539e73f due to none of the searches
accounting for "SQL" being wrapped in tags.
As with
04539e73f, we don't touch code comments here in order to not
create unnecessary back-patching pain.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpML27UqFXnrYO1MJddsKVMQoiZisPvsAGhKE_tsKXquw%40mail.gmail.com
<listitem>
<para>
Defines whether to wrap a returned sequence of <acronym>SQL/JSON</acronym>
- items into a <acronym>SQL/JSON</acronym> array.
+ items into an <acronym>SQL/JSON</acronym> array.
</para>
<variablelist>
<varlistentry>
<title>Description</title>
<para>
- The <function>JSON_SERIALIZE</function> function transforms a SQL/JSON value
+ The <function>JSON_SERIALIZE</function> function transforms an SQL/JSON value
into a character or binary string.
</para>
</sect5>
<para>
At the <literal>REPEATABLE READ</literal> or <literal>SERIALIZABLE</literal>
transaction isolation level this would cause a serialization failure (with
- a <literal>SQLSTATE</literal> of <literal>'40001'</literal>), so there is
+ an <literal>SQLSTATE</literal> of <literal>'40001'</literal>), so there is
no possibility of receiving rows out of order under these isolation levels.
</para>
</caution>
<para>
If the final <literal>SELECT</literal> or <literal>RETURNING</literal>
- clause in a <acronym>SQL</acronym> function does not return exactly
+ clause in an <acronym>SQL</acronym> function does not return exactly
the function's declared result
type, <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> will automatically cast
the value to the required type, if that is possible with an implicit