From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: DOCS: add helpful partitioning links |
Date: | 2024-03-20 11:52:47 |
Message-ID: | CAExHW5tg7Qgah=TNEHoyGz-7RKXCRnTDY40SQ05mbwBGSpTjfg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 6:38 PM Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
>
> I've put it in the next commitfest with target version of 17, and I've
> added you as a reviewer :-)
>
>
Thanks.
> Also, attached is an updated patch with your change above which should
> apply cleanly to the current git master.
>
It did apply for me now.
The HTML renders good, the links work as expected.
The CREATE TABLE ... LIKE command
I think the original word "option" instead of "command" is better since we
are talking about LIKE as an option to CREATE TABLE instead of CREATE TABLE
command.
+ but any future attached or created partitions will be indexed as well.
I think just "any future partitions will be indexed as well" would suffice,
no need to mention whether they were created or attached.
+ One limitation when creating new indexes on partitioned tables is
that it
+ is not possible to use the <literal>CONCURRENTLY</literal>
+ qualifier when creating such a partitioned index. To avoid long
The sentence uses two different phrases, "indexes on partitioned tables"
and "partitioned index", for the same thing in the same sentence. Probably
it is better to leave original sentence as is.
But I think it's time for a committer to take a look at this. Please feel
free to address the above comments if you agree with them. Marking this as
ready for committer.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-03-20 12:03:39 | Re: Reducing output size of nodeToString |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-20 11:49:52 | Re: Reducing output size of nodeToString |