From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "elionescu(at)yahoo(dot)com" <elionescu(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: incorrect (incomplete) description for "alter domain" |
Date: | 2024-07-29 14:58:06 |
Message-ID: | 2585954.1722265086@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Monday, July 29, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> wrote:
>> In the Synopsis section of
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdomain.html
>> this is incorrect (incomplete):
>> "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]"
>> It should be
>> "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD CONSTRAINT domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]"
> The definition of “domain_constraint” includes the optional “constraint
> constraint_name” clause. Though reading the page and seeing the number of
> times we say “alter domain add constraint” I even more inclined to agree
> that bringing the word constraint there is desirable. I am not a huge fan
> of the indirect syntax references anyway.
I think the page is technically correct, but I'm inclined to duplicate
this text from the CREATE DOMAIN page:
where domain_constraint is:
[ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
{ NOT NULL | NULL | CHECK (expression) }
rather than making readers go look that up. Is that the same thing
you're thinking, or did you have a different idea?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-29 15:17:41 | Re: incorrect (incomplete) description for "alter domain" |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-07-29 14:13:50 | Re: Typo in 15.3.4 |