| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: documentation fixes for partition pruning, round two |
| Date: | 2018-06-01 18:57:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20180601185722.duspxys3xlecsyrv@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pushed. I made a couple of minor changes, in particular I added the
word "one" to this sentence, which was already under discussion:
On 2018-May-24, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:30:40AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > + possible to show the difference between a plan whose partitions have been
> > + pruned and one whose partitions haven't. A typical unoptimized plan for
> > + this type of table setup is:
> >
> > "a plan whose partitions have been pruned" sounds a bit off; maybe, "a
> > plan in which partitions have been pruned".
>
> I wrote:
>
> "[...] a plan for which partitions have been pruned and for which they have
> not."
"it's possible to show the difference between a plan for which partitions have
been pruned and *one* for which they have not."
Thanks!
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-06-01 19:00:10 | Re: documentation fixes for partition pruning, round two |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-01 18:56:54 | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows |