tiny documentation fix

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

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:56 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

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.

Thank you.

- Amit