Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA984CE6EC
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:24:50 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <pgsql@j-davis.com>) id 1Sffsm-0007jj-3P
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:24:49 +0000
Received: by eaak11 with SMTP id k11so1074938eaa.19
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date
	:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding
	:x-gm-message-state;
	bh=taD1iK8y7B6nxoRM1hGx7NyoJuQpwtRQo5XPXAoodOU=;
	b=WXR2afywtXVxjkLoFT9oYey+u2RZRtas2ou3hQx3yaKeus87XnGmcEB+7da0xCU792
	2FeKqXqv2WbR/GnrGEEMSObsEdQNkXdkUKz7xtc8Flh+auW2+0I1GzRhAV3q1KXbC7an
	ho/BWA0Xa6RLgXVT8kadKLIktn+5xAEnBeoH2TLl0SgFU+sV5e/J9GITOfGbP6iRqqyh
	StWu4FQdDp4oSkwnNpWg7KcHRtcvjS/nvOL7f34FDYu8RmMoagMUwHmr4A/XUBcY90zg
	+6JQUDjk+MoocrpUltUImFK3j3rrfOmdGB8Xe7JSogZl3KFYbUMlJ9g+QgObt5Tfwp5R
	o3XA==
Received: by 10.14.185.134 with SMTP id u6mr1039054eem.188.1339802674751;
	Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:::1? ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe93:2ae4])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g46sm35564107eea.14.2012.06.15.16.24.32
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Comment on max_locks_per_transaction
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
In-Reply-To: <4FDB8EDF.2080904@agliodbs.com>
References: <4FDB796A.7080803@agliodbs.com>
	<1339788314.16772.3.camel@sussancws0025>
	<4FDB8EDF.2080904@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:24:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1339802670.20206.3.camel@sussancws0025>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 ALoCoQkX5CgxyTuECjp2pk94ceIU/ai5DvgUPKjUGaECt+IXK7wC4X6esU0Irc5trWAzhDTBrbiE
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201206/6
X-Sequence-Number: 7365

On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 12:37 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hmmm.  I think we should also say "partitioning", as well as
> "inheritance".  Maybe:
> 
> "Extensive use of table inheritance, such as for tables with many
> partitions, may require raising this setting."

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-CONSTRAINT-EXCLUSION

Looks like we do define it, so that's fine with me.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis