Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id 681e76ad-3a7b-ea3c-b6b0-55946239c49b@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: document the need to analyze partitioned tables
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 10/8/21 14:58, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Cleaned up and attached as a .patch.
> 
> The patch implementing autoanalyze on partitioned tables should
> revert relevant portions of this patch.

I went through this patch and I'd like to propose a couple changes, per 
the 0002 patch:

1) I've reworded the changes in maintenance.sgml a bit. It sounded a bit 
strange before, but I'm not a native speaker so maybe it's worse ...

2) Remove unnecessary whitespace changes in perform.sgml.

3) Simplify the analyze.sgml changes a bit - it was trying to cram too 
much stuff into a single paragraph, so I split that.

Does that seem OK, or did omit something important?

FWIW I think it's really confusing we have inheritance and partitioning, 
and partitions and child tables. And sometimes we use partitioning in 
the generic sense (i.e. including the inheritance approach), and 
sometimes only the declarative variant. Same for partitions vs child 
tables. I can't even imagine how confusing this has to be for people 
just learning this stuff. They must be in permanent WTF?! state ...

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: New developer papercut - Makefile references INSTALL
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: New developer papercut - Makefile references INSTALL