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

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: 2019-02-06 11:26:43
Message-ID: CAKJS1f8LODhDYO3M89ZUqd86iWy16VTkEW-fCabCKUK2GBH47g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2019-02-06 11:29:13 Re: Tighten up a few overly lax regexes in pg_dump's tap tests
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2019-02-06 11:23:58 Re: Fix optimization of foreign-key on update actions