Missing word

On Tuesday, May 13, 2025, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/ddl-partitioning.html
Description:

In the paragraph:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.
html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENANCE,
sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the
partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right.

The existing wording is correct. The fact it immediately precedes a detach
partition command example should make this abundantly clear. Though adding
“not” as you’ve done doesn’t make any sense regardless - it is a
self-contradiction to both be a partition and independent (on its own
right).

David J.

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:

In the paragraph:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENANCE,
sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right.

AFAICS, it's correct as written.

regards, tom lane

Ok you are right, I get it now but still I think this can be written more
clearly.

wt., 13 maj 2025, 16:19 użytkownik Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał:

On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:

In the paragraph:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-MAINTENANCE,
sentence "Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right." there is missing "not" word. Correct form of this sentence should
be: Another option that is often preferable is to not remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right.

AFAICS, it's correct as written.

Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach".
I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned
table" particulary suggestive of what's being described.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Para tener más hay que desear menos"

=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:

On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:

"Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its own
right."

AFAICS, it's correct as written.

Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach".
I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned
table" particulary suggestive of what's being described.

Hm, maybe, but would that be putting too much emphasis on "detach" because
it's the command keyword?

regards, tom lane

What about sth like that:

Normally the set of partitions established when initially defining the

table is not intended to remain static. It is common to want to remove
partitions holding old data and periodically add new partitions for new
data. One of the most important advantages of partitioning is precisely
that it allows this otherwise painful task to be executed nearly
instantaneously by manipulating the partition structure, rather than
physically moving large amounts of data around.

There are two ways for removing old data:

1) Drop the partition that is no longer necessary

DROP TABLE measurement_y2006m02;

This is he simplest option for removing old data. This can very quickly

delete millions of records because it doesn't have to individually delete
every record. Note however that the above command requires taking an ACCESS
EXCLUSIVE lock on the parent table.

2) Disconnect the partition from the partitioned table

This option that is often preferable. We are retaining access to data as a

table in its own right. This has two forms:

czw., 15 maj 2025 o 20:28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał(a):

=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> writes:

On 2025-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:

"Another option that is often preferable is to remove the partition
from the partitioned table but retain access to it as a table in its

own

right."

AFAICS, it's correct as written.

Yeah, but maybe it would be clearer if the word "remove" were "detach".
I don't find the phrase "remove the partition from the partitioned
table" particulary suggestive of what's being described.

Hm, maybe, but would that be putting too much emphasis on "detach" because
it's the command keyword?

regards, tom lane

--
Pozdrawiam
Paweł Szymczyk