alter table doc fix

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.

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.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers