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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
