On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 5:29 AM David Rowley > > I also split this out into its own paragraph since it's talking about > > something quite different from the previous paragraph. > > Did you miss to split? In v4 patches, I still see this point > mentioned in the same paragraph that it was in before:
Not quite. I just changed my mind again after reading it through. Since both paragraphs were talking about the number of partitions I decided they should be the same paragraph after all. > > I've reworded > > this slightly and it now says "what will the implications be if in > > several years you instead find yourself with a large number of small > > customers." > > I suggest "consider the implications" in place of "what will the > implications be...". Also a user may choose a particular design (one > partition per customer) *because* of their business situation (small > number of large customers), so I suggest linking the two clauses with > "because". With these two changes, the whole sentence will read more > connected, imho: The disconnect there is on purpose. I don't really want to suggest they chose to partition by customer because they have a small number of large customers. The choice to partition by customer could well have come from "customer_id = ..." always being present in WHERE clauses and they may be fooled into thinking it's a good idea to partition by that because of that fact. I'm hoping the text there points out that it might not always be a good choice. I have slightly reworded it to be a bit closer to your suggestion, but I maintained the disconnect. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
part_doc_master_v5.patch
Description: Binary data
part_doc_pg10_v5.patch
Description: Binary data
part_doc_pg11_v5.patch
Description: Binary data
