RE: [Patch]: Documentation of ALTER TABLE re column type changes on binary-coercible fields

From: "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Mike Lissner' <mlissner(at)michaeljaylissner(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [Patch]: Documentation of ALTER TABLE re column type changes on binary-coercible fields
Date: 2020-01-29 01:21:38
Message-ID: OSAPR01MB32020B75B3CED8D717159268EF050@OSAPR01MB3202.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:56 AM (GMT+9), Mike Lissner wrote:
> Hi all, I didn't get any replies to this. Is this the right way to send in a patch to the
> docs?

Hello,
Yes, although your current patch does not apply as I tried it in my machine.
But you can still rebase it.
For the reviewers/committers to keep track of this, I think it might be better to
register your patch to the commitfest app: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/27/,
and you may put it under the "Documentation" topic.

There's also a CFbot to check online whether your patch still applies cleanly
and passes the tests, especially after several commits in the source code.
Current CF: http://commitfest.cputube.org/index.html
Next CF: http://commitfest.cputube.org/next.html

Regards,
Kirk Jamison

> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:01 PM Mike Lissner <mlissner(at)michaeljaylissner(dot)com
> <mailto:mlissner(at)michaeljaylissner(dot)com> > wrote:
>
>
> Hi, first patch here and first post to pgsql-hackers. Here goes.
>
>
> Enclosed please find a patch to tweak the documentation of the ALTER TABLE
> page. I believe this patch is ready to be applied to master and backported all the way
> to 9.2.
>
>
> On the ALTER TABLE page, it currently notes that if you change the type of a
> column, even to a binary coercible type:
>
> > any indexes on the affected columns must still be rebuilt.
>
>
> It appears this hasn't been true for about eight years, since 367bc426a.
>
> Here's the discussion of the topic from earlier today and yesterday:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-
> id/flat/CAMp9%3DExXtH0NeF%2BLTsNrew_oXycAJTNVKbRYnqgoEAT01t%3D67A%40
> mail.gmail.com
>
> I haven't run tests, but I presume they'll be unaffected by a documentation
> change.
>
>
> I've made an effort to follow the example of other people's patches I looked
> at, but I haven't contributed here before. Happy to take another stab at this if this
> doesn't hit the mark — though I hope it does. I love and appreciate Postgresql and
> hope that I can do my little part to make it better.
>
> For the moment, I haven't added this to commitfest. I don't know what it is,
> but I suspect this is small enough somebody will just pick it up.
>
>
> Mike
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kohei KaiGai 2020-01-29 01:23:04 Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited?
Previous Message Kohei KaiGai 2020-01-29 00:59:57 Re: Is custom MemoryContext prohibited?