On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:14 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:15 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would probably just update the synopsis. It's not very hard to > > > > figure out what's likely to happen even without clicking through the > > > > link, so it seems like it's just being long-winded to duplicate the > > > > stuff here. But I don't care much if you feel otherwise. > > > > > > It looks like there are pros and cons. I think it’s a matter of > > > preference, though. > > > > > > I thought it would be an improvement, but I agree that we can live > > > without it, so I changed my mind; I'll go with my version. I think we > > > could revisit this later. > > > > I guess I'm fine with leaving the text as-is, though slightly bothered > > by leaving the phrase "partition of the given parent table with > > specified partition bound values" to also cover the DEFAULT partition > > case. > > I think we should discuss this separately, maybe as a HEAD-only patch, > so I pushed my version, leaving the description as-is.
No problem, thanks for the fix. -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
