From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? |
Date: | 2019-06-10 23:15:12 |
Message-ID: | 20190610231512.GA30522@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:11:35PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-09, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > I think it should say:
> >
> > | Choosing the target number of partitions into which the table should be
> > | divided is also a critical decision to make. Not having enough
>
> I opined elsewhere in the thread that this phrase can be made into more
> straightforward English:
>
> Choosing the target number of partitions THAT the table should be
> divided INTO is also a critical decision to make. Not having enough
>
> What do you think of that formulation?
It originally said:
| Choosing the number of partitions to divide the table into is also a
So this mostly changes it back.
One could also say:
| Another critical decision is [the choice of?] the number of partitions
| into which the table['s content?] should be divided...
I'm okay with it if David is okay making the change :)
Thanks,
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thierry Husson | 2019-06-10 23:45:38 | Re: Temp table handling after anti-wraparound shutdown (Was: BUG #15840) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-10 23:07:52 | Re: pg_dump: fail to restore partition table with serial type |