NikhilS wrote:
>> The argument I made for keeping the example around is not
> dependent on
>> the assumption that using a rule is a good idea. It's dependent on
>> the established fact that we have recommended that in prior
>> releases, and therefore people are going to be seeing that
>> construct in real databases.
>
> And they could refer back to the older version of the documentation
> for it. In fact, we should mention that in the patch:
>
> <note><para>If you have a partitioning setup that uses rules please
> refer to the 8.2 documentation on partitioning</para></note>
>
> +1
I would also add another sentence about *why* the recommendation was
changed. We have one rule-based setup here, and it has been working
flawlessly for us,... so personally I don't even know the reasons.
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
