Обсуждение: tiny documentation fix

Hi,

I propose this small fix for 27.4. Progress Reporting:

-    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned on
+    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned in
     <xref linkend="sql-analyze"/>.

Note the last word: "in" sounds more correct.

Thanks,
Amit

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:55:46PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> I propose this small fix for 27.4. Progress Reporting:
>
> -    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned on
> +    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned in
>      <xref linkend="sql-analyze"/>.
>
> Note the last word: "in" sounds more correct.

What you are suggesting sounds much better to me than the original.
Do others have comments or objections?
--
Michael

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:43 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:55:46PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > I propose this small fix for 27.4. Progress Reporting:
> >
> > -    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned on
> > +    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned in
> >      <xref linkend="sql-analyze"/>.
> >
> > Note the last word: "in" sounds more correct.
>
> What you are suggesting sounds much better to me than the original.
> Do others have comments or objections?

+1 with Amit's suggestion.

> On 17 Feb 2020, at 10:42, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:55:46PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I propose this small fix for 27.4. Progress Reporting:
>>
>> -    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned on
>> +    all of its partitions are also recursively analyzed as also mentioned in
>>     <xref linkend="sql-analyze"/>.
>>
>> Note the last word: "in" sounds more correct.
>
> What you are suggesting sounds much better to me than the original.
> Do others have comments or objections?

In my understanding, the difference comes from how the link is interpreted, is
the mention "on a webpage" or "in a section".  Personally I prefer 'in' as it
works for the PDF docs as well as the web docs.  In doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
there is similar instance where we've used "in <xref ..":

    "As mentioned in <xref linkend="xact-serializable"/>, Serializable
    transactions are just Repeatable Read transactions which add"

Changing as per the patch makes these consistent, so +1 on doing that.

cheers ./daniel

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Changing as per the patch makes these consistent, so +1 on doing that.

Thanks, applied.
--
Michael