On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 6:14 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:15 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I would probably just update the synopsis. It's not very hard to
> > > > figure out what's likely to happen even without clicking through the
> > > > link, so it seems like it's just being long-winded to duplicate the
> > > > stuff here. But I don't care much if you feel otherwise.
> > >
> > > It looks like there are pros and cons. I think it’s a matter of
> > > preference, though.
> > >
> > > I thought it would be an improvement, but I agree that we can live
> > > without it, so I changed my mind; I'll go with my version. I think we
> > > could revisit this later.
> >
> > I guess I'm fine with leaving the text as-is, though slightly bothered
> > by leaving the phrase "partition of the given parent table with
> > specified partition bound values" to also cover the DEFAULT partition
> > case.
>
> I think we should discuss this separately, maybe as a HEAD-only patch,
> so I pushed my version, leaving the description as-is.
No problem, thanks for the fix.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com