Re: doc phrase: "inheritance child"

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 03:22:38PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:30 PM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > <para>
> > - If true, the stats include inheritance child columns, not just the
> > + If true, the stats include child tables, not just the
> >
> > We are replacing columns with tables; is that intentional?
> >
> > Partitioned tables do not have their own stats, it's just aggregated partition stats.
> > ...
> > - If true, the stats include inheritance child columns, not just the
> > + If true, the stats include child childs, not just the
> > values in the specified relation
> > </para></entry>
> > </row>
> > @@ -13152,7 +13152,7 @@ SELECT * FROM pg_locks pl LEFT JOIN pg_prepared_xacts ppx
> > <structfield>inherited</structfield> <type>bool</type>
> > </para>
> > <para>
> > - If true, this row includes inheritance child columns, not just the
> > + If true, this row includes child tables, not just the
> > values in the specified table
> > </para></entry>
> > </row>
> >
> > Replacing inheritance child "column" with "tables", is that intentional?
>
> I was a bit confused by these too, though perhaps the original text is
> not as clear as it could be? Would the following be a good rewrite:

I updated the language to say "values from". Is this better ?

And rebased to include changes to 401f623c7.

BTW nobody complained about my "child child" typo.

--
Justin