| From: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
| Date: | 2007-11-29 15:29:38 |
| Message-ID: | 474EDAE2.3010705@gmx.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
NikhilS wrote:
>> The argument I made for keeping the example around is not
> dependent on
>> the assumption that using a rule is a good idea. It's dependent on
>> the established fact that we have recommended that in prior
>> releases, and therefore people are going to be seeing that
>> construct in real databases.
>
> And they could refer back to the older version of the documentation
> for it. In fact, we should mention that in the patch:
>
> <note><para>If you have a partitioning setup that uses rules please
> refer to the 8.2 documentation on partitioning</para></note>
>
> +1
I would also add another sentence about *why* the recommendation was
changed. We have one rule-based setup here, and it has been working
flawlessly for us,... so personally I don't even know the reasons.
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Usama Dar | 2007-11-29 15:48:33 | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-11-29 15:05:07 | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-29 15:47:53 | Re: pg_regress: paths in largeobject test |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-11-29 15:05:07 | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |