From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Edson Richter <edsonrichter@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Partitioning docs (was Re: Range partitioning and overlap)
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwZ+5Lz15bmMizx_dBd+E9LZ4nBKKc2XwxxD1CH=OxeK2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <DM6PR13MB3988736CF8F5DC5720440231CFE60@DM6PR13MB3988.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAKFQuwavKNFu5oAL4c36uuoWgsMBteSrBBxOg4nrPYoXokHYmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR13MB3988F15C65F793B32C1E1F30CFE60@DM6PR13MB3988.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <398613.1605301084@sss.pgh.pa.us> <414580.1605320014@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwZ+5Lz15bmMizx_dBd+E9LZ4nBKKc2XwxxD1CH=OxeK2g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:43:00 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <417733.1605323748.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 22:15:48 -0500
Message-ID: <417734.1605323748@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Looks good to me (just read the patch), Thanks!  Just one suggestion toward
> the top:

> ...allows you to (specify declaratively => declare) that a table is divided
> into partitions. (specification becomes declaration further down)

Sure.  That's a little further from the previous wording than what
I had, but it's probably better.

> I am curious as to your thoughts on unique indexes and whether/how to
> better incorporate advice regarding the use of ON CONFLICT with
> partitioning [1] vis-a-vis the overview's claim of:
> "The partitioning substitutes for leading columns of indexes, reducing
> index size and making it more likely that the heavily-used parts of the
> indexes fit in memory" [2]