Re: [HACKERS] Documentation improvements for partitioning

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 07:44:41AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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  <bruce@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 +