From db7fe0de6280ea71c0ce949ee4a00da2af4bf2d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:47:03 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Revert: looks like Binary Large OBject[sic] wasn't a
misspelling
---
doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml
index 0e11652088..ef66b5e310 100644
--- 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>
--
2.49.0