Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations
Date: 2022-06-08 05:35:05
Message-ID: CAHut+PtR-qBPHPgeDDSnRaBUvtrYJm0jhsthpCKVVBPvYm-dPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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"

But then this comes full circle back to my question if during beta is
a good time to be making such a change.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-06-08 05:51:39 Re: Error from the foreign RDBMS on a foreign table I have no privilege on
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2022-06-08 05:05:09 Re: Error from the foreign RDBMS on a foreign table I have no privilege on