Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> I have to admit my reaction was similar to Simon's, meaning that the
>> lack of docs is a problem, and that the limitations are kind of a
>> surprise, and I wonder what other surprises there are.
>
> Did you read my message upthread pointing out that the initial commit
> contained hundreds of lines of documentation? I agree that it would
> be bad if table partitioning got committed with no documentation, but
> that did not happen.
>
>> I am thinking this is a result of small teams, often from the same
>> company, working on a features in isolation and then making them public.
>> It is often not clear what decisions were made and why.
>
> That also did not happen, or at least certainly not with this patch.
> All of the discussion was public and on the mailing list.

FWIW, I agree that some of what has been claimed about what
contributors failed to do with this patch is exaggerated, and not in a
way that I'd understand as hyperbole that drives home a deeper point.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised at the limitations that this
feature has, even if Bruce and Simon are. The documentation needs
work, and perhaps the feature itself needs a small tweak here or
there. Just not to a particularly notable degree, given the point we
are in in the release cycle.

--
Peter Geoghegan