On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 6:15 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would probably just update the synopsis. It's not very hard to
> > > figure out what's likely to happen even without clicking through the
> > > link, so it seems like it's just being long-winded to duplicate the
> > > stuff here. But I don't care much if you feel otherwise.
> >
> > It looks like there are pros and cons. I think it’s a matter of
> > preference, though.
> >
> > I thought it would be an improvement, but I agree that we can live
> > without it, so I changed my mind; I'll go with my version. I think we
> > could revisit this later.
>
> I guess I'm fine with leaving the text as-is, though slightly bothered
> by leaving the phrase "partition of the given parent table with
> specified partition bound values" to also cover the DEFAULT partition
> case.
I think we should discuss this separately, maybe as a HEAD-only patch,
so I pushed my version, leaving the description as-is.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
