public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: yuzuko <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:05:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmoYNaSWQg1W3JZ62UBM9iMphBpVJr_oDxn5T1X_viOPBtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On 3/16/22 00:00, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [ new patch ]
>>
>> This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I
>> think the next step is for Justin to say whether he's OK with the
>> latest version that Tomas posted. If he is, then I suggest that he
>> also mark it Ready for Committer, and that Tomas commit it. If he's
>> not, he should say what he wants changed and either post a new version
>> himself or wait for Tomas to do that.
> 
> Yes, I think it can be Ready.  Done.
> 
> I amended some of Tomas' changes (see 0003, attached as txt).
> 
> @cfbot: the *.patch file is for your consumption, and the others are only there
> to show my changes.
> 
>> I think the fact that is classified as a "Bug Fix" in the CommitFest
>> application is not particularly good. I would prefer to see it
>> classified under "Documentation". I'm prepared to concede that
>> documentation can have bugs as a general matter, but nobody's data is
>> getting eaten because the documentation wasn't updated. In fact, this
>> is the fourth patch from the "bug fix" section I've studied this
>> afternoon, and, well, none of them have been back-patchable code
>> defects.
> 
> In fact, I consider this to be back-patchable back to v10.  IMO it's an
> omission that this isn't documented.  Not all bugs cause data to be eaten.  If
> someone reads the existing documentation, they might conclude that their
> partitioned tables don't need to be analyzed, and they would've been better
> served by not reading the docs.
> 

I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd
call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth
mentioning in the docs, even on older branches).


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

view thread (13+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox