Re: Typo/wording on https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/catalog-pg-class.html

> On 22 Sep 2023, at 19:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>> "Most" here is good English, although I concede it's a slightly
>> old-fashioned usage. Maybe it'd be clearer to just remove the
>> word altogether.
>
>> If we were going to touch this sentence I'd worry about some other
>> things too. Use of "catalogs" as a verb is probably not the greatest
>> choice right here, since one could easily think that the verb is
>> missing and what was meant was "pg_class lists catalogs, [user]
>> tables, and ...". Also, I think that the reference to special
>> relations is obsolete --- we don't list any relkind for that anymore.
>> What probably does deserve to be called out in place of those is
>> composite types, since their appearance in pg_class might be pretty
>> surprising to newbies.
>
> Hmm, I must have been looking at some old version of the docs, because
> when I went to prepare a draft patch I found that those last couple of
> points were addressed some time ago. I think we just need some slightly
> better wording here rather than any change of technical content.
> I propose the attached. (I also modified the para's last sentence to
> speak of "kind" not "type", for consistency with the relkind field name
> and the rest of the para.)

LGTM.

--
Daniel Gustafsson