Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > [ new patch ]
>
> This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I
> think the next step is for Justin to say whether he's OK with the
> latest version that Tomas posted. If he is, then I suggest that he
> also mark it Ready for Committer, and that Tomas commit it. If he's
> not, he should say what he wants changed and either post a new version
> himself or wait for Tomas to do that.

Yes, I think it can be Ready. Done.

I amended some of Tomas' changes (see 0003, attached as txt).

@cfbot: the *.patch file is for your consumption, and the others are only there
to show my changes.

> I think the fact that is classified as a "Bug Fix" in the CommitFest
> application is not particularly good. I would prefer to see it
> classified under "Documentation". I'm prepared to concede that
> documentation can have bugs as a general matter, but nobody's data is
> getting eaten because the documentation wasn't updated. In fact, this
> is the fourth patch from the "bug fix" section I've studied this
> afternoon, and, well, none of them have been back-patchable code
> defects.

In fact, I consider this to be back-patchable back to v10. IMO it's an
omission that this isn't documented. Not all bugs cause data to be eaten. If
someone reads the existing documentation, they might conclude that their
partitioned tables don't need to be analyzed, and they would've been better
served by not reading the docs.

--
Justin