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.bapat@enterprisedb.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