From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Matem=C3=A1tica_A3K?= <matematica.a3k@gmail.com>,
        Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
        pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Improve "3.6. Inheritance" tutorial
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwb1=WmDfWUGnFb9GrWi-s=6UwDSF7zbDcE-GX9jXg9kJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <179088091522.1026193.3570337969572056877@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <3c6bdd69af16e90e3da20be277e836b25eeee1a5.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CA+FDnhL0oygEJYZhDeAo+wwFykJeb__NNcO1+vyKSTqbTmQfvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <344e5b7d87a8c0e8e8f5f4924345b1caec1a4418.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CA+FDnh+3OSbze87OPnttj-A2R4oHM7_Yas=yS=MpgG82=qWixw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9a545ec303e4c1a124c6b41b1b426b7c74cdb1c2.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CA+FDnhJe_P9giZbdXusj0s-f2QRffLQKzcy5ivFnJdKx_6Vd_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwb1=WmDfWUGnFb9GrWi-s=6UwDSF7zbDcE-GX9jXg9kJA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 08 Oct 2026 10:59:30 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2525570.1791482995.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2026 14:09:55 -0400
Message-ID: <2525571.1791482995@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2525571.1791482995%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Seems like an all-or-nothing proposal that is quite different from what is
> done today and doesn't contribute significant added value.
> The interplay between the tutorial and the authoritative reference sections
> are substantially correct today.  I'd advise making any changes try and fit
> within the current setup rather than trying to redesign the entire thing.

Not too long ago there was discussion of removing the tutorial's
discussion of inheritance entirely, on the grounds that it's a legacy
feature people don't use much anymore.  (They do use partitioning,
which is built on much the same infrastructure, but it presents as a
completely different thing.)  I could see doing that, or replacing
the section with something about partitioning, but I can't get excited
about putting significant work into that section with its current
charter.

			regards, tom lane