On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 07:44:41AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > I have to admit my reaction was similar to Simon's, meaning that the > > lack of docs is a problem, and that the limitations are kind of a > > surprise, and I wonder what other surprises there are. > > Did you read my message upthread pointing out that the initial commit > contained hundreds of lines of documentation? I agree that it would > be bad if table partitioning got committed with no documentation, but > that did not happen. > > > I am thinking this is a result of small teams, often from the same > > company, working on a features in isolation and then making them public. > > It is often not clear what decisions were made and why. > > That also did not happen, or at least certainly not with this patch. > All of the discussion was public and on the mailing list. I never > communicated with Amit Langote off-list about this work, except > shortly before I committed his patches I added him on Skype and gave > him a heads up that I was planning to do so real soon. At no time > have the two of us worked for the same company. Also, the patch had 7 > other reviewers credited in the commit messages spread across, I > think, 4 different companies.
I think you are right. I was only guessing on a possible cause of Simon's reaction since I had the same reaction. When traveling, it is hard to get excited about reading a 100+ post thread that has reached a conclusion. I found Simon's summary of the 4 sub-features to be helpful. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
