Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441F82E01A8 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:48:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50939-02 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:48:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.171]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAAC12E0174 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:48:39 -0400 (AST) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so1881674ugf for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:48:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=dqsgxL//+hZ/KuToamZOlEWZBM4TM8T7E05maxm1ijU=; b=wZiEbuFmS8IMUcfxVHKIQcSuMRIzX7kPohAePEZJE/iO4mtIwrrUDbDo+WemJQr8ALin0kbuCmFF4IbFSfj+J0yRmtTHEPcTIOJEEAusDJKO44k2ckWcc14r2yB8VPKtaxfNQL5Kd4tshNxxg8nD9M/YRwIcu0evQOaZ9b6EeQQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=RNIfuxWwDXu1HwuH9QZCpI7608O24fjFRWNPF8f4MMYu5hrGCpI4ioOQXZRvQNys6gMZOzEjY658znIKKEDWXK36Cyra13q35I2joegpBtYIDLLPyz+YSnJDpZP5TaHreuSJ8LHsHlbJt5Xee9D4QsWkqgDTZIBgUodtob/d5WY= Received: by 10.78.145.14 with SMTP id s14mr2076824hud.1196351313315; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.151.9 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:48:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:48:33 +0500 From: "Usama Dar" To: "Michael Paesold" Subject: Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules Cc: NikhilS , "Joshua D. Drake" , "Tom Lane" , "David Fetter" , "Jonah H. Harris" , "PostgreSQL Docs" , "PostgreSQL Patches" In-Reply-To: <474EDAE2.3010705@gmx.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10197_1142831.1196351313307" 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> <474EDAE2.3010705@gmx.at> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/286 X-Sequence-Number: 4527 ------=_Part_10197_1142831.1196351313307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline i would say have both, but just mention that for performance reasons its better to use triggers. On Nov 29, 2007 8:29 PM, Michael Paesold wrote: > 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: > > > > If you have a partitioning setup that uses rules please > > refer to the 8.2 documentation on partitioning > > > > +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 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Usama Munir Dar Consultant Architect Cell:+92 321 5020666 Skype: usamadar ------=_Part_10197_1142831.1196351313307 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline i would say have both, but just mention that for performance reasons its better to use triggers.

On Nov 29, 2007 8:29 PM, Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at > wrote:
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


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly



--
Usama Munir Dar
Consultant Architect
Cell:+92 321 5020666
Skype: usamadar
------=_Part_10197_1142831.1196351313307--