LGTM. The commitfest entry is marked as RFC already.
Thanks for taking care of the comments. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 5:54 AM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 6:43 AM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:58 PM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > >> v5 patch attached which I think further improves clarity/brevity of > >> this section. I've left the patch name the same for simplicity, but > >> I'd agree that the commit would now be more along the lines of editing > >> / improvements / copyrighting of "Partition Maintenance" docs. > > > > > > Right. Minor suggestions. > > > > - It is recommended to drop the now-redundant > <literal>CHECK</literal> > > - constraint after the <command>ATTACH PARTITION</command> is > complete. If > > - the table being attached is itself a partitioned table, then each > of its > > + As illustrated above, it is recommended to avoid this scan by > creating a > > + <literal>CHECK</literal> constraint on the to be attached table > that > > > > Instead of "to be attached table", "table to be attached" reads better. > You may want to add "as a partition" after that. > > > > That sounds more awkward to me, but I've done some rewording to avoid both. > > > Similarly, if the partitioned table has a > <literal>DEFAULT</literal> > > partition, it is recommended to create a <literal>CHECK</literal> > > constraint which excludes the to-be-attached partition's > constraint. If > > - this is not done then the <literal>DEFAULT</literal> partition > will be > > + this is not done, the <literal>DEFAULT</literal> partition must be > > > > I am not sure whether replacing "will" by "must" is correct. Usually I > have seen "will" being used in such sentences, "must" seems appropriate > given the necessity. > > > > OK > > Updated patch attached. > > > Robert Treat > https://xzilla.net >
