On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:06 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:32:16AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > c8434d64c implements a new feature whereby, to use partitionwise join, > > partition bounds of the tables being joined no longer have to match > > exactly. I think it might be better to mention this explicitly > > because it enables partitionwise joins to be used in more partitioning > > setups. > > Well, the text says: > > Allow partitionwise joins to happen in more cases (Ashutosh Bapat, > Etsuro Fujita, Amit Langote, Tom Lane) > > Isn't that what you just said? I just added this paragraph: > > For example, partitionwise joins can now happen between partitioned > tables where the ancestors do not exactly match. > > Does that help?
Yes, although "ancestors do not exactly match" doesn't make clear what about partitioned tables doesn't match. "partition bounds do not exactly match" would. > > > <para> > > > Previously, partitions had to be replicated individually. Now > > > partitioned tables can be published explicitly causing all > > > partitions > > > to be automatically published. Addition/removal of partitions > > > from > > > partitioned tables are automatically added/removed on subscribers. > > > The CREATE PUBLICATION option publish_via_partition_root controls > > > whether > > > partitioned tables are published as themselves or their ancestors. > > > </para> > > > > Thanks. Sounds good except I think the last sentence should read: > > > > ...controls whether partition changes are published as their own or as > > their ancestor's. > > OK, done. Hmm, I see that you only took "as their own". - ...controls whether partitioned tables are published as themselves or their ancestors. + ...controls whether partitioned tables are published as their own or their ancestors. and that makes the new sentence sound less clear. I mainly wanted "partitioned table" replaced by "partition", because only then the phrase "as their own or their ancestor's" would make sense. I know our partitioning terminology can be very confusing with many terms including at least "partitioned table", "partition", "ancestor", "leaf partition", "parent", "child", etc. that I see used. > > > </listitem> > > > > > > <listitem> > > > <!-- > > > Author: Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> > > > 2020-04-06 [f1ac27bfd] Add logical replication support to > > > replicate into partit > > > --> > > > > > > <para> > > > Allow non-partitioned tables to be logically replicated to > > > subscribers > > > that receive the rows into partitioned tables (Amit Langote) > > > </para> > > > > Hmm, why it make it sound like this works only if the source table is > > non-partitioned? The source table can be anything, a regular > > non-partitioned table, or a partitioned one. > > Well, we already covered the publish partitioned case in the above item. > > > How about: > > > > Allow logical replication into partitioned tables on subscribers > > > > Previously, it was allowed only into regular [ non-partitioned ] tables. > > OK, I used this wording: > > Allow logical replication into partitioned tables on subscribers (Amit > Langote) > > Previously, subscribers could only receive rows into non-partitioned > tables. This is fine, thanks. I have attached a patch with my suggestions above. -- Amit Langote EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
partition-item-wording.patch
Description: Binary data
