Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > I noticed what looks like a redundant line (or an incomplete sentence) in > the paragraph about multi-column partition keys. In the following text: > > + partitioning, if desired. Of course, this will

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/04/01 6:37, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> Attached updated patch. > > Committed with editing here and there. I just left out the thing > about UNION ALL views, which seemed to brief a treatment to deserve >

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Attached updated patch. Committed with editing here and there. I just left out the thing about UNION ALL views, which seemed to brief a treatment to deserve its own subsection. Maybe a longer explanation of

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/03/28 0:23, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> Attached updated patches. > > Committed 0002, 0003. Thanks a lot for committing these and reviewing 0001. > I think the section on BRIN in 0001 is just silly. BRIN is a very > useful index type,

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/03/10 3:26, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think you might have the titles for 0002 and 0003 backwards. > > Oops, you're right. > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> 0002: some cosmetic

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/03/10 3:26, Robert Haas wrote: > I think you might have the titles for 0002 and 0003 backwards. Oops, you're right. > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> 0002: some cosmetic fixes to create_table.sgml > > I think this sentence may be unclear to some readers: > > +

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Robert Haas writes: > This is about list-ifying a note, but I think we should try to > de-note-ify it. It's a giant block of text that is not obviously more > noteworthy than the surrounding text; I think should be saved > for things that particularly need to be called

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

I think you might have the titles for 0002 and 0003 backwards. On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > 0002: some cosmetic fixes to create_table.sgml I think this sentence may be unclear to some readers: + One might however want to set it for only

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/28 17:25, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 28 February 2017 at 08:14, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> OK. So, I will start writing the patch with above general skeleton and >> hopefully post it within this week and you can improve it as fit. > > Will do, thanks.

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> I like the idea of merging what are now two chapters into one and call it >> Partitioned Tables, retaining the text that describes concepts > > +1 > > ...but how? > > 5.10 Partitioned Tables and Related Solutions >

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 28 February 2017 at 08:14, Amit Langote wrote: > OK. So, I will start writing the patch with above general skeleton and > hopefully post it within this week and you can improve it as fit. Will do, thanks. -- Simon Riggs

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/27 20:44, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 27 February 2017 at 10:12, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> I agree that my patch failed to de-emphasize the old partitioning method >> enough. The examples in 5.11 Partitioning chapter also did not highlight >> the new

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 27/02/17 07:59, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/27 3:18, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 24/02/17 07:15, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: The good news is that logical replication DOES work with partitioning, but only for a

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 27 February 2017 at 10:12, Amit Langote wrote: > I agree that my patch failed to de-emphasize the old partitioning method > enough. The examples in 5.11 Partitioning chapter also did not highlight > the new partitioning feature as much as it should have been,

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/15 12:00, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/27 3:18, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 24/02/17 07:15, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> The good news is that logical replication DOES work with partitioning, >>> but only for a Publication with PUBLISH INSERT, pushing from

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 24/02/17 07:15, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> The good news is that logical replication DOES work with partitioning, >> but only for a Publication with PUBLISH INSERT, pushing from a normal >> table to a partitioned one.

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think you are right. I was only guessing on a possible cause of > Simon's reaction since I had the same reaction. When traveling, it is > hard to get excited about reading a 100+ post thread that has reached a >

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 07:44:41AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have to admit my reaction was similar to Simon's, meaning that the > > lack of docs is a problem, and that the limitations are kind of a > > surprise, and I

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > The good news is that logical replication DOES work with partitioning, > but only for a Publication with PUBLISH INSERT, pushing from a normal > table to a partitioned one. Which is useful enough for first release. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 24 February 2017 at 02:36, Robert Haas wrote: >> While its true that the patch had syntax documentation, there was no >> user design documentation which explained how it worked to allow >> objective review. Had I been able to provide input without reading >> every email

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Simon, this is ridiculous. We're 4 or 5 days away from the start of > the last CommitFest. We have time to fix bugs and improve > documentation and maybe tweak things here and there, but 3 and 4 are > significant

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2/23/17 8:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: We're 4 or 5 days away from the start of the last CommitFest. We have time to fix bugs and improve documentation and maybe tweak things here and there, but 3 and 4 are significant development projects. There isn't time to do that stuff right now and get

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > You seem a little defensive about some reasonable review comments. I am prone to that from time to time, and this may be an instance of it. > While its true that the patch had syntax documentation, there was no > user

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > My argument was that CREATE INDEX is expected to just work on tables > at present, so should also just work on partitioned tables. Without > that, the reality is people will need to write scripts. Really? What about

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 23 February 2017 at 17:27, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> What claims are you talking about? Which things have been exaggerated, >> and by whom? > > * The specious argument that we should "just" have CREATE

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 02/23/2017 09:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: * "Good work so far, but there is still a very significant amount of work to do." There is always more work to do, so why say so? I think that the implication is that

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > What claims are you talking about? Which things have been exaggerated, > and by whom? * The specious argument that we should "just" have CREATE INDEX create equivalent indexes across partitions, to save all those people

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 22 February 2017 at 02:14, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have to admit my reaction was similar to Simon's, meaning that the >> lack of docs is a problem, and that the limitations are kind of a >>

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 22 February 2017 at 19:57, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > FWIW, I agree that some of what has been claimed about what > contributors failed to do with this patch is exaggerated, and not in a > way that I'd understand as hyperbole that drives home a deeper point. What claims are you

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I have to admit my reaction was similar to Simon's, meaning that the >> lack of docs is a problem, and that the limitations are kind of a >>

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote: > There is a very small typo that a comma is missing. > Attached is the patch to fix it. Thank you. I have committed your patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have to admit my reaction was similar to Simon's, meaning that the > lack of docs is a problem, and that the limitations are kind of a > surprise, and I wonder what other surprises there are. Did you read my message

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Hi, There is a very small typo that a comma is missing. Attached is the patch to fix it. On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 07:57:53 -0500 Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > Noticed some typos in the

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/21 12:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> I think, that's a limitation till we implement global indexes. But >> nothing in the current implementation stops us from implementing it. >> In fact, I remember, a

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/21 12:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I think, that's a limitation till we implement global indexes. But > nothing in the current implementation stops us from implementing it. > In fact, I remember, a reply from Robert to another thread on > partitioning started in parallel to Amit's thread

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 02:37:44PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On 15 February 2017 at 15:46, Robert Haas wrote: >>

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/16 10:45, Amit Langote wrote: > Also attaching 0002 (unchanged) for tab-completion support for the new > partitioning syntax. Robert already spawned a new thread titled "tab completion for partitioning" for this [0]. > 0003 changes how ExecFindPartition() shows the row for which >

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 02:37:44PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 15 February 2017 at 15:46, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> It leaves me asking what else is missing. > >> > >> There is certainly a lot

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:08:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as > > an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 February 2017 at 15:46, Robert Haas wrote: >>> It leaves me asking what else is missing. >> >> There is certainly a lot of room for improvement here but I don't >> understand your persistent

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/20 1:04, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Amit Langote wrote: >> So I count more than a few votes saying that we should be able to DROP >> partitioned tables without specifying CASCADE. >> >> I tried to implement that using the attached patch by having >>

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 15 February 2017 at 15:46, Robert Haas wrote: >> It leaves me asking what else is missing. > > There is certainly a lot of room for improvement here but I don't > understand your persistent negativity about what's been done thus far. > I think it's pretty clearly a huge

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/16 2:08, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> I think 0001 is better than the status quo, but I'm wondering whether >> we should try to do something slightly different. Maybe it should >> always work for the child table to specify neither WITH OIDS nor >>

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Forgot to attach the patch. Thanks Rajkumar for notifying me. I think this is overexplaining what is anyway obvious. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Forgot to attach the patch. Thanks Rajkumar for notifying me. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > In the documentation of ALTER TABLE ... ATTACH PARTITION its implicit > that partition name specified should be the name of the existing table

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

In the documentation of ALTER TABLE ... ATTACH PARTITION its implicit that partition name specified should be the name of the existing table being attached. Same is the case with DETACH PARTITION where its implicit that the detached partition becomes a stand-alone table with same name as the

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/16 2:08, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as >> an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can manipulate >> partitions

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/15 13:31, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On 2017/02/13 14:21, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On 2017/02/10 19:19, Simon Riggs wrote: * The OID inheritance needs work - you shouldn't need to specify a

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> True. I think the question here is: do we want to view the dependency >> between a partitioned table and a partition of that table as >> DEPENDENCY_NORMAL or as DEPENDENCY_AUTO? With table inheritance, it's >> always been

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think new-style partitioning is supposed to consider each partition as > an implementation detail of the table; the fact that you can manipulate > partitions separately does not really mean that they are their

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Because partitions may have data. > > > > So would the table, were it not partitioned. > > True. I think the question here is: do we want to view the

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> * "ERROR: cannot create index on partitioned table >>> "measurement_year_month"" >>> is misleading because you can create indexes on partitions >> >> Do you mean that this should not cause an error at all, but create

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On 02/15/2017 06:10 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On 13 February 2017 at 05:21, Amit Langote >> > wrote: >> >> > If I issue DROP TABLE elsewhere, it doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 02/15/2017 06:10 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 13 February 2017 at 05:21, Amit Langote > > wrote: > > > If I issue DROP TABLE elsewhere, it doesn't refuse to drop because it > > has indexes, sequences etc on it. So why should it just

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 02/15/2017 06:10 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 13 February 2017 at 05:21, Amit Langote wrote: If I issue DROP TABLE elsewhere, it doesn't refuse to drop because it has indexes, sequences etc on it. So why should it just because it has partitions? Because

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 13 February 2017 at 05:21, Amit Langote wrote: >> Few points from tests >> >> * "ERROR: cannot create index on partitioned table "measurement_year_month"" >> is misleading because you can create indexes on partitions > > Do you mean that this should not cause

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Noticed some typos in the documentation. Here's patch to correct > those. Sorry, if it has been already taken care of. Thanks. That is indeed nonstandard capitalization. Committed. -- Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Noticed some typos in the documentation. Here's patch to correct those. Sorry, if it has been already taken care of. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: >> On

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/13 14:21, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2017/02/10 19:19, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> * The OID inheritance needs work - you shouldn't need to specify a >>> partition needs OIDS if the parent has it already.

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Given that we already have partitioning feature committed, we really > need to have the docs committed as well. Just for the record, it's not like there were no documentation changes in the originally committed patch.

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/13 14:21, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/10 19:19, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 10 February 2017 at 08:18, Amit Langote >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that getting the proposed documentation changes committed would be >>> a step ahead. >> >> Committed. I tested

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/13 14:21, Amit Langote wrote: > On 2017/02/10 19:19, Simon Riggs wrote: >> * The OID inheritance needs work - you shouldn't need to specify a >> partition needs OIDS if the parent has it already. > > That sounds right. It's better to keep the behavior same as for regular >

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/10 19:19, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 February 2017 at 08:18, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> I agree that getting the proposed documentation changes committed would be >> a step ahead. > > Committed. I tested how it works and added documentation that matched

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 10 February 2017 at 08:18, Amit Langote wrote: > I agree that getting the proposed documentation changes committed would be > a step ahead. Committed. I tested how it works and added documentation that matched my experiences, correcting what you'd said and

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 2017/02/10 17:00, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 February 2017 at 07:35, Amit Langote > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On 10 February 2017 at 07:35, Amit Langote 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

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Hi Corey, On 2017/02/09 6:14, Corey Huinker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Amit Langote > wrote: > >> Here are some patches to improve the documentation about partitioned >> tables: > > Patch applies. > > Overall this looks really good. It goes a long

Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > Here are some patches to improve the documentation about partitioned > tables: > > 0001: Adds some details about partition_bound_spec to the CREATE TABLE > page, especially: > > - a note about inclusivity of

[HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

Here are some patches to improve the documentation about partitioned tables: 0001: Adds some details about partition_bound_spec to the CREATE TABLE page, especially: - a note about inclusivity of range partition bounds, - a note about the UNBOUNDED literal in case of range partitioning, - a