On 2017/04/14 16:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 14 April 2017 at 08:39, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/04/14 16:25, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 14 April 2017 at 08:13, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Attached patch gets rid of a "is has".
>>> Yes, its a typo, but doesn't add missing information or change the meaning.
>>> It should be fixed, but could I suggest we include that in your next
>>> lot of doc changes, rather than keep making single minor changes?
>> Sorry, I'm not working on any new doc changes at the moment, because...
>>> (I had understood that we were going to add more docs together, but I
>>> was awaiting your restructuring patch)
>> The restructuring patch was committed on Apr 1st, after I posted the first
>> version of the patch on March 3rd here:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4eb8cfe4-b6c9-903d-4ce8-2a31fcee27e1%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>> The committed version:
>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=8f18a880a5f138d4da94173d15514142331f8de6
> Oh, just looks very different to what we discussed, so I presumed more
> changes were coming.

It looks different perhaps as the result of working through the review


> Where shall I mention BRIN in that chapter?

Maybe just append a new <sect2> right below where <sect2
id="ddl-partitioning-constraint-exclusion"> ends?

I had included both BRIN and UNION ALL views under a sub-section titled
"Alternative Methods" in my original patch (March 3rd one), but removed
the whole sub-section per review comments.  Perhaps, my patch didn't do a
good enough job of describing either BRIN or UNION ALL views, that it
ended up being not convincing enough to be made part of the section.

By the way, will you also be adding details on UNION ALL views (I remember
you said you would along with BRIN)?  Actually, my patch copied verbatim
what older docs had about them that you said is too short a description.


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

Reply via email to