Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 11:05 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:25 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 03:42:31PM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> > > I noticed the patch "0001-language-fixes-on-HEAD-from-Justin.patch" says:
> > >
> > > @@ -11673,7 +11673,7 @@
> > > prosrc => 'pg_show_replication_origin_status' },
> > >
> > > # publications
> > > -{ oid => '6119', descr => 'get information of tables in a publication',
> > > +{ oid => '6119', descr => 'get information about tables in a publication',
> > >
> > > ~~~
> > >
> > > But, this grammar website [1] says:
> > ...
> > > From which I guess
> > >
> > > 1. 'get information of tables in a publication' ~= 'get information
> > > belonging to tables in a publication'
> >
> > But the information doesn't "belong to" the tables.
> >
> > The information is "regarding" the tables (or "associated with" or "concerned
> > with" or "respecting" or "on the subject of" the tables).
> >
> > I think my change is correct based on the grammar definition, as well as its
> > intuitive "feel".
> >
>
> Actually, I have no problem with this being worded either way. My
> point was mostly to question if it was really worth changing it at
> this time - e.g. I think there is a reluctance to change anything to
> do with the catalogs during beta (even when a catversion bump may not
> be required).
>
> I agree that "about" seems better if the text said, "get information
> about tables". But it does not say that - it says "get information
> about tables in a publication" which I felt made a subtle difference.
>
> e.g.1 "... on the subject of / concerned with tables."
> - sounds like attributes about each table (col names, row filter etc)
>
> versus
>
> e.g.2 "... on the subject of / concerned with tables in a publication."
> - sounds less like information PER table, and more like information
> about the table membership of the publication.
>
> ~~
>
> Any ambiguities can be eliminated if this text was just fixed to be
> consistent with the wording of catalogs.sgml:
> e.g. "publications and information about their associated tables"
>

I don't know if this is better than the current text for this view:
'get information of tables in a publication' and unless we have a
consensus on any change here, I think it is better to retain the
current text as it is.

I would like to close the Open item listed corresponding to this
thread [1] as the fix for the reported issue is committed
(fd0b9dcebd). Do let me know if you or others think otherwise?

[1] - https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_15_Open_Items

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.