On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 08:02, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:\>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 02:30, Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The algoritm as described in your patch implies that this recursive
> > locking is conditional on _only_ the check-constraints of the topmost
> > partition ("performed whilst holding ... and all of its
> > sub-partitions, if any"), whereas actually the locking on each
> > (sub-)partition is determined by the constraints of the hierarchy down
> > to that child partition. It in actuality, this should not matter much,
> > but this is a meaningful distinction that I wanted to call out.
>
> I had in mind that was implied, but maybe it's better to be explicit about
> that.
>
> I've adjusted the patch and attached what I came up with. Let me know
> what you think.
I like this improved wording. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
