Re: doc phrase: "inheritance child" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

 
@@ -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.

--