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

15 years ago · 7b243aa666
parent 5194b9d049
commit 7b243aa666
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
--- a/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-<!-- $PostgreSQL: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml,v 1.5 2010/08/17 04:37:20 petere Exp $ -->
+<!-- $PostgreSQL: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/lo.sgml,v 1.6 2010/08/17 04:47:04 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>