On 2017/02/10 17:00, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 February 2017 at 07:35, Amit Langote
> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> A final note, because I'm really familiar with partitioning on Postgres and
>>> other databases, documentation which is clear to me might not be to someone
>>> less familiar with partitioning. Maybe we want another reviewer for that?
>> More eyeballs will only help make this better.
> Given that we already have partitioning feature committed, we really
> need to have the docs committed as well.
> Without claiming I'm happy about this, I think the best way to improve
> the number of eyeballs on this is to commit these docs as is.
> For me, the most important thing is understanding the feature, not
> (yet) discussing what the docs should look like. This is especially
> true if other patches reference the way partitioning works and nobody
> can comment on those patches because they don't understand
> Any issues with that?

I agree that getting the proposed documentation changes committed would be
a step ahead.  I saw in the logical replication thread that dealing with
partitioned tables without the docs explaining what they are has been
difficult.  Hopefully the proposed documentation improvements help make
progress in that regard.  Partitioned tables, at this point, have certain
limitations which affect its interaction with other features (old or new);
documenting those limitations will be helpful not only to the users
deciding whether to start using the new partitioned tables right away, but
also to the developers of other features who want to understand what
partitioned tables are.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to