agora inbox for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feedMissing word
7+ messages / 5 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Missing word
@ 2025-05-13 10:34 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: PG Doc comments form @ 2025-05-13 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/ddl-partitioning.html
Description:
In the paragraph:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENAN...,
sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing word
@ 2025-05-13 14:17 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
parent: PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David G. Johnston @ 2025-05-13 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com <pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
On Tuesday, May 13, 2025, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/ddl-partitioning.html
> Description:
>
> In the paragraph:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.
> html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENANCE,
> sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the
> partition
> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
> be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> right.
>
The existing wording is correct. The fact it immediately precedes a detach
partition command example should make this abundantly clear. Though adding
“not” as you’ve done doesn’t make any sense regardless - it is a
self-contradiction to both be a partition and independent (on its own
right).
David J.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing word
@ 2025-05-13 14:19 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2025-05-13 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com; +Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> In the paragraph:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENAN...,
> sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
> be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> right.
AFAICS, it's correct as written.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing word
@ 2025-05-13 15:24 Paweł Szymczyk <pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paweł Szymczyk @ 2025-05-13 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Ok you are right, I get it now but still I think this can be written more
clearly.
wt., 13 maj 2025, 16:19 użytkownik Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał:
> PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> > In the paragraph:
> >
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENAN...
> ,
> > sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the
> partition
> > from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> > right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
> > be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the
> partition
> > from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> > right.
>
> AFAICS, it's correct as written.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing word
@ 2025-05-15 17:52 Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Álvaro Herrera @ 2025-05-15 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:
> PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> > In the paragraph:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENAN...,
> > sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
> > from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> > right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
> > be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
> > from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
> > right.
>
> AFAICS, it's correct as written.
Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach".
I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned
table" particulary suggestive of what's being described.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Para tener más hay que desear menos"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing word
@ 2025-05-15 18:28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2025-05-15 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>; +Cc: pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
> On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
>>> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
>>> right."
>> AFAICS, it's correct as written.
> Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach".
> I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned
> table" particulary suggestive of what's being described.
Hm, maybe, but would that be putting too much emphasis on "detach" because
it's the command keyword?
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing word
@ 2025-05-15 21:12 Paweł Szymczyk <pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paweł Szymczyk @ 2025-05-15 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>; pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
What about sth like that:
Normally the set of partitions established when initially defining the
> table is not intended to remain static. It is common to want to remove
> partitions holding old data and periodically add new partitions for new
> data. One of the most important advantages of partitioning is precisely
> that it allows this otherwise painful task to be executed nearly
> instantaneously by manipulating the partition structure, rather than
> physically moving large amounts of data around.
There are two ways for removing old data:
1) Drop the partition that is no longer necessary
>
DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02;
>
This is he simplest option for removing old data. This can very quickly
> delete millions of records because it doesn't have to individually delete
> every record. Note however that the above command requires taking an ACCESS
> EXCLUSIVE lock on the parent table.
>
2) Disconnect the partition from the partitioned table
>
This option that is often preferable. We are retaining access to data as a
> table in its own right. This has two forms:
czw., 15 maj 2025 o 20:28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał(a):
> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:
> > On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
> >>> from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its
> own
> >>> right."
>
> >> AFAICS, it's correct as written.
>
> > Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach".
> > I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned
> > table" particulary suggestive of what's being described.
>
> Hm, maybe, but would that be putting too much emphasis on "detach" because
> it's the command keyword?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Pozdrawiam
Paweł Szymczyk
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-05-15 21:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-05-13 10:34 Missing word PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2025-05-13 14:17 ` David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
2025-05-13 14:19 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2025-05-13 15:24 ` Paweł Szymczyk <pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com>
2025-05-15 17:52 ` Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
2025-05-15 18:28 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2025-05-15 21:12 ` Paweł Szymczyk <pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox