> I agree with the sentiment of the third doc change, but your patch removes > the mention of n_distinct, which isn't appropriate.
I think it's correct to remove n_distinct there, as it's documented previously, since e5550d5f. That's a per-attribute option (not storage) and can't be specified there.
OK, then agreed.
> The second change in your patch alters the meaning of the sentence in a way > that is counter to the first change. The name of these parameters is > "Storage Parameters" (in various places); I might agree with describing > them in text as "storage or planner parameters", but if you do that you > can't then just refer to "storage parameters" later, because if you do it > implies that planner parameters operate differently to storage parameters, > which they don't.
The 2nd change is:
for details on the available parameters. Note that the table contents - will not be modified immediately by this command; depending on the + will not be modified immediately by setting its storage parameters; depending on the parameter you might need to rewrite the table to get the desired effects.
I deliberately qualified that as referring only to "storage params" rather than "this command", since planner params never "modify the table contents". Possibly other instances in the document (and createtable) should be changed for consistency.
Yes, but it's not a correction, just a different preference of wording.
