From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Removing "Included attributes in B-tree indexes" section from docs |
Date: | 2018-06-18 04:22:09 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdv4WwEH3-sxPrAcM0-x2TevAaks=NJXCEyEirXLAeACbw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> > should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
>
> What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?
>
> The doc section that I removed was a last minute addition to the
> covering index commit, commit 8224de4f, something that I was heavily
> involved in as a reviewer. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I had
> discretion to commit within a relatively short period of time (a
> little over 24 hours) because of the specific circumstances: I knew
> that the doc section was not well considered in the first place, I
> thought that the question was clear cut, and I doubted that anyone
> else would follow up at all.
FWIW, I've no objections against removing this.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-06-18 04:27:51 | Re: Partitioning with temp tables is broken |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-06-18 02:59:40 | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |