| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning |
| Date: | 2017-02-10 08:00:27 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jLkrdwjCRGgtepHFJFcwMFj9hX1mRG8=S+mSfB+sAuR1w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 February 2017 at 07:35, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> A final note, because I'm really familiar with partitioning on Postgres and
>> other databases, documentation which is clear to me might not be to someone
>> less familiar with partitioning. Maybe we want another reviewer for that?
>
> More eyeballs will only help make this better.
Given that we already have partitioning feature committed, we really
need to have the docs committed as well.
Without claiming I'm happy about this, I think the best way to improve
the number of eyeballs on this is to commit these docs as is.
For me, the most important thing is understanding the feature, not
(yet) discussing what the docs should look like. This is especially
true if other patches reference the way partitioning works and nobody
can comment on those patches because they don't understand
Any issues with that?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-02-10 08:18:25 | Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-02-10 07:48:15 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |