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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Documentation and code don't agree about partitioned table UPDATEs
Date: 2019-02-09 11:01:47
Message-ID: 20190209110147.wpbkglvdqr72fksj@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-02-07 09:16:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> 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!

Thanks David and Amit!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-02-09 11:02:06 Re: XLogInsert() of dangling pointer while logging replica identity
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-02-09 10:54:00 Re: fast defaults in heap_getattr vs heap_deform_tuple