Re: Documentation and code don't agree about partitioned table UPDATEs

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Documentation and code don't agree about partitioned table UPDATEs
Date: 2019-02-07 03:46:09
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JCBAAMteLCFvoy5Dptvy5NTWp61qXVzh3_M4jRidTZPg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 16:20, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I agree that the docs need to be updated and this patch should be
> > backpatched as well. However, I think the older wording was more
> > descriptive and clear, so I have modified your patch a bit to retain
> > part of old wording, see the result as attached.
>
> I have to admit, I was quite fond of the original text, at least when
> it was true. Your alteration of it seems pretty good to me too.
>

Thanks, pushed!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-02-07 03:50:51 Re: bug tracking system
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2019-02-07 03:31:39 Re: pg11.1: dsa_area could not attach to segment