Re: 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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> 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 upthread pointing out that the initial commit
> contained hundreds of lines of documentation? I agree that it would
> be bad if table partitioning got committed with no documentation, but
> that did not happen.
>
> > I am thinking this is a result of small teams, often from the same
> > company, working on a features in isolation and then making them public.
> > It is often not clear what decisions were made and why.
>
> That also did not happen, or at least certainly not with this patch.
> All of the discussion was public and on the mailing list. I never
> communicated with Amit Langote off-list about this work, except
> shortly before I committed his patches I added him on Skype and gave
> him a heads up that I was planning to do so real soon. At no time
> have the two of us worked for the same company. Also, the patch had 7
> other reviewers credited in the commit messages spread across, I
> think, 4 different companies.

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
conclusion. I found Simon's summary of the 4 sub-features to be
helpful.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +