From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
cc: pawel.szymczyk90@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Missing word
In-reply-to: <202505151752.gnensinzclls@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202505151752.gnensinzclls@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
	message dated "Thu, 15 May 2025 13:52:13 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <12224.1747333688.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 14:28:08 -0400
Message-ID: <12225.1747333688@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12225.1747333688%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

=?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