Re: alter table doc fix

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: alter table doc fix
Date: 2017-10-23 02:52:21
Message-ID: 0829f0d7-2226-755a-ede9-a0ea51bb4223@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017/10/18 20:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Langote wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Noticed that a alter table sub-command's name in Description (where it's
>> OWNER) differs from that in synopsis (where it's OWNER TO). Attached
>> patch to make them match, if the difference is unintentional.
>
> I agree -- pushed.

Thanks for committing.

> This paragraph
>
> <para>
> The actions for identity columns (<literal>ADD
> GENERATED</literal>, <literal>SET</literal> etc., <literal>DROP
> IDENTITY</literal>), as well as the actions
> <literal>TRIGGER</literal>, <literal>CLUSTER</literal>, <literal>OWNER</literal>,
> and <literal>TABLESPACE</literal> never recurse to descendant tables;
> that is, they always act as though <literal>ONLY</literal> were specified.
> Adding a constraint recurses only for <literal>CHECK</literal> constraints
> that are not marked <literal>NO INHERIT</literal>.
> </para>
>
> is a bit annoying, though I think it'd be worse if we "fix" it to be
> completely strict about the subcommands it refers to.

I didn't notice it in this paragraph before you pointed out, but maybe as
you say, there's not much point in trying to be strict here too. If we do
fix it though, we might want to do something about TRIGGER, CLUSTER, too,
because there are no sub-commands named just TRIGGER, CLUSTER.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-10-23 03:04:50 Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function
Previous Message Amit Langote 2017-10-23 01:43:27 Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP