Re: documentation fixes for partition pruning, round three

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(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 21:55:06
Message-ID: CAKJS1f9BLz4uxbp2qS_pVA2R5ggYHL3Z7GLVHp15x30K81iW2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6 July 2018 at 09:41, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Committed.
>
> Thanks for handling this.
>
> Should we do this in REL_11_STABLE too? I vote yes.

Sorry for now paying much attention to this, but I've read through
what's been committed and I also think PG11 deserves this 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 Michael Paquier 2018-07-05 23:16:08 Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-07-05 21:44:25 Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling