Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables

On 3/16/22 00:00, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> [ new patch ]
>>
>> This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I
>> think the next step is for Justin to say whether he's OK with the
>> latest version that Tomas posted. If he is, then I suggest that he
>> also mark it Ready for Committer, and that Tomas commit it. If he's
>> not, he should say what he wants changed and either post a new version
>> himself or wait for Tomas to do that.
>
> Yes, I think it can be Ready. Done.
>
> I amended some of Tomas' changes (see 0003, attached as txt).
>
> @cfbot: the *.patch file is for your consumption, and the others are only there
> to show my changes.
>
>> I think the fact that is classified as a "Bug Fix" in the CommitFest
>> application is not particularly good. I would prefer to see it
>> classified under "Documentation". I'm prepared to concede that
>> documentation can have bugs as a general matter, but nobody's data is
>> getting eaten because the documentation wasn't updated. In fact, this
>> is the fourth patch from the "bug fix" section I've studied this
>> afternoon, and, well, none of them have been back-patchable code
>> defects.
>
> In fact, I consider this to be back-patchable back to v10. IMO it's an
> omission that this isn't documented. Not all bugs cause data to be eaten. If
> someone reads the existing documentation, they might conclude that their
> partitioned tables don't need to be analyzed, and they would've been better
> served by not reading the docs.
>

I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth
mentioning in the docs, even on older branches).

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company