Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB2C2E02CE
	for <pgsql-patches-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:55 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 83883-08 for
	<pgsql-patches-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:42 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 989BC2E0041
	for <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:48 -0400 (AST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2007 15:29:46 -0000
Received: from office01.emerion.com (EHLO [127.0.0.1]) [83.64.50.26]
	by mail.gmx.net (mp007) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2007 16:29:46 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1946847
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/K4itkUcfK3gGo/Kft9IfA0YIbgMFm8bpGvpxLUi
	NqMMy7TFhOJcxS
Message-ID: <474EDAE2.3010705@gmx.at>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:29:38 +0100
From: Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: NikhilS <nikkhils@gmail.com>
CC: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
References: <20071128202615.GG24146@fetter.org>	
	<21686.1196283184@sss.pgh.pa.us>	
	<36e682920711281858x9a37039sa104036bf025de41@mail.gmail.com>	
	<20071129031702.GU24146@fetter.org>
	<2854.1196315753@sss.pgh.pa.us>	
	<20071128224154.06f950c9@commandprompt.com>
	<d3c4af540711290705q35ea51cdkfaa94b0c07a1aecc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d3c4af540711290705q35ea51cdkfaa94b0c07a1aecc@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200711/284
X-Sequence-Number: 4525

NikhilS wrote:
>> The argument I made for keeping the example around is not
> dependent on
>> the assumption that using a rule is a good idea.  It's dependent on
>>  the established fact that we have recommended that in prior
>> releases, and therefore people are going to be seeing that
>> construct in real databases.
> 
> And they could refer back to the older version of the documentation
> for it. In fact, we should mention that in the patch:
> 
> <note><para>If you have a partitioning setup that uses rules please 
> refer to the 8.2 documentation on partitioning</para></note>
> 
> +1

I would also add another sentence about *why* the recommendation was 
changed. We have one rule-based setup here, and it has been working 
flawlessly for us,... so personally I don't even know the reasons.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold