Re: doc phrase: "inheritance child"

Hi Justin,

@@ -7306,7 +7306,7 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$<replaceable>&lt;iteration
count&gt;</replaceable>:<replaceable>&l
<para>
Normally there is one entry, with <structfield>stainherit</structfield>
=
<literal>false</literal>, for each table column that has been analyzed.
- If the table has inheritance children, a second entry with
+ If the table has inheritance children or partitions, a second entry with
<structfield>stainherit</structfield> = <literal>true</literal> is also
created. This row
represents the column's statistics over the inheritance tree, i.e.,
statistics for the data you'd see with

For partitioned tables only the second entry makes sense. IIRC, we had done
some work to remove the first entry. Can you please check whether a
partitioned table also has two entries?

<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 the table has inheritance children, a second entry with
+ If the table has inheritance children or partitions, a second entry with
<structfield>stxdinherit</structfield> = <literal>true</literal> is
also created.
This row represents the statistics object over the inheritance tree,
i.e.,

Similar to the first comment. s/inheritance tree/inheritance or partition
tree/ ?

- 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?

Are these all the places where child/children need to be replaced by
partitions?

Now that the feature is old and also being used widely, it probably makes
sense to mention partition where inheritance children is mentioned, if this
double mention makes sense. But I think it's more than just the
replacement. We need to rewrite or make modified copies of some of the
sentences or paragraphs entirely. Esp. the things that apply to inheritance
may not be applicable as is to partitioning and vice versa. We may be
required to replace inheritance tree with partition tree in the nearby
sentences.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh