Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 22:25:21 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations
Message-ID: <20220608032521.GM29853@telsasoft.com>
References: 
 <CAA4eK1KfL=ez5fKPB-0Nrgf7wiqN9bXP-YHHj2YH5utXAmjYug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220519120724.GO19626@telsasoft.com>
 <165764.1652970286@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAA4eK1KrXS0js9S0YFQRh9Vf5kaVOyz=NqA=0vMHvF1kxUJVkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <OS0PR01MB5716AD7C0FE7386630BDBAAB94D79@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1JDuOb96naN7akLpXz6G2ZGnGyg73w5Xt8ncAhWNF5Giw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220527055331.GF19626@telsasoft.com>
 <OS0PR01MB5716FFBE5AACA8707C3420E994D89@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1L+zqRYGT-597O72G3fggGBVFQEWxEFrqY=+HMAcw2XdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PtWYSEW2KJcZP5tVZohSQQ43j7APSfA=WY_G68RheiLrQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHut+PtWYSEW2KJcZP5tVZohSQQ43j7APSfA=WY_G68RheiLrQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220608032521.GM29853%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

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".

-- 
Justin