"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Seems like an all-or-nothing proposal that is quite different from what is
> done today and doesn't contribute significant added value.
> The interplay between the tutorial and the authoritative reference sections
> are substantially correct today. I'd advise making any changes try and fit
> within the current setup rather than trying to redesign the entire thing.
I also agree with this point
Not too long ago there was discussion of removing the tutorial's
discussion of inheritance entirely, on the grounds that it's a legacy
feature people don't use much anymore. (They do use partitioning,
which is built on much the same infrastructure, but it presents as a
completely different thing.) I could see doing that, or replacing
the section with something about partitioning, but I can't get excited
about putting significant work into that section with its current
charter.
I see other people have come to similar concerns than me - I personally find this feature may induce
bad database design from my POV and only make sense for partitioning. However, the feature
is there, so the docs should reflect it. It should be removed from the docs if the feature is dropped, but
that would be a discussion for other mailing list.
I also share your impression about partitioning, a tutorial should be made for it as it is done for inheritance.
I'll make a proposal for it after I finish my first iteration on the book in a new thread.
I'm stuck in this thread, I can't resolve the contradiction between "This is small improvement" and "Maybe
but isn't worthy", in my mind both are right.
I'll accept the second, have a new direction with what Tom said and have better documentation guidelines.
This is what I can make out of the effort put in this, so it's not wasted.
Thanks everyone!
regards, tom lane
