Revert: looks like Binary Large OBject[sic] wasn't a misspelling

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml
index 0e11652088df63e1e52f0bca03f7537b036d4fcc..ef66b5e310f47d7effc6b9d9e6333fcd4b8fef96 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-<!-- $PostgreSQL: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml,v 1.3.16.2 2010/08/17 04:37:17 petere Exp $ -->
+<!-- $PostgreSQL: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml,v 1.3.16.3 2010/08/17 04:47:03 petere Exp $ -->
 
 <sect1 id="lo">
  <title>lo</title>
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
   <para>
    One of the problems with the JDBC driver (and this affects the ODBC driver
    also), is that the specification assumes that references to BLOBs (Binary
-   Large Objects) are stored within a table, and if that entry is changed, the
+   Large OBjects) are stored within a table, and if that entry is changed, the
    associated BLOB is deleted from the database.
   </para>