On 3/16/22 00:00, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> >> wrote: >>> [ new patch ] >> >> This patch is originally by Justin. The latest version is by Tomas. I >> think the next step is for Justin to say whether he's OK with the >> latest version that Tomas posted. If he is, then I suggest that he >> also mark it Ready for Committer, and that Tomas commit it. If he's >> not, he should say what he wants changed and either post a new version >> himself or wait for Tomas to do that. > > Yes, I think it can be Ready. Done. > > I amended some of Tomas' changes (see 0003, attached as txt). > > @cfbot: the *.patch file is for your consumption, and the others are only > there > to show my changes. > >> I think the fact that is classified as a "Bug Fix" in the CommitFest >> application is not particularly good. I would prefer to see it >> classified under "Documentation". I'm prepared to concede that >> documentation can have bugs as a general matter, but nobody's data is >> getting eaten because the documentation wasn't updated. In fact, this >> is the fourth patch from the "bug fix" section I've studied this >> afternoon, and, well, none of them have been back-patchable code >> defects. > > In fact, I consider this to be back-patchable back to v10. IMO it's an > omission that this isn't documented. Not all bugs cause data to be eaten. If > someone reads the existing documentation, they might conclude that their > partitioned tables don't need to be analyzed, and they would've been better > served by not reading the docs. >
I've pushed the last version, and backpatched it to 10 (not sure I'd call it a bugfix, but I certainly agree with Justin it's worth mentioning in the docs, even on older branches). regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company