| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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 three |
| Date: | 2018-07-05 21:41:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20180705214128.hyacmxgf47kjkexq@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jul-05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 01.06.18 23:33, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >>> - should we find a unified term for "inheritence-based partitioning" and avoid
> >>> using the word "partitioning" in that context? For example: "Partitioning
> >>> can be implemented using table inheritance[...]". One possible phrase
> >>> currently begin used is: "legacy inheritance method".
> >>
> >> Yeah, maybe it'd be a good time to do that. In particular I wondered
> >> whether the section title "Partitioning and Constraint Exclusion" should
> >> be changed somehow to note the fact that it's mostly for the legacy
> >> method.
> >
> > I made changes to avoid "partition" (which I think should mean a child of
> > relkind='p', and itself of relkind='r') and "partitioned" (meaning relkind='p'
> > itself) but left alone most instances of "partitioning".
>
> Committed.
Thanks for handling this.
Should we do this in REL_11_STABLE too? I vote yes.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-07-05 21:44:25 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-05 21:39:10 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |