optionally schema-qualified for table_name
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-altersequence.html
Description:
Although I can see that table_name in OWNED BY clause can be optionally
schema-qualified by ᅟcarefully reading "The specified table must have the
same owner and be in the same schema as the sequence.", it would be good if
"optionally schema-qualified" is explicitly noted somehow like other pages
such as CREATE TABLE and CREATE VIEW. The same applies to CREATE SEQUENCE
page.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:58:02AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-altersequence.html
Description:Although I can see that table_name in OWNED BY clause can be optionally
schema-qualified by ᅟcarefully reading "The specified table must have the
same owner and be in the same schema as the sequence.", it would be good if
"optionally schema-qualified" is explicitly noted somehow like other pages
such as CREATE TABLE and CREATE VIEW. The same applies to CREATE SEQUENCE
page.
I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as
adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases.
I thought maybe the schema wasn't mentioned because the table.column
defaults to the sequence's schema, but it does not --- you have to
specify the column's schema if would not be normally be found via
search_path:
CREATE SCHEMA zz;
SET search_path = zz, public;
CREATE TABLE zz.test (x INT);
CREATE SEQUENCE zz.ss;
ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY test.x;
SET search_path = public, zz;
ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY test.x;
SET search_path = public;
ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY test.x;
--> ERROR: relation "test" does not exist
ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY zz.test.x;
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +Attachments:
schema.difftext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload+6-6
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as
adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases.
I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as
adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases.I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.
What do you suggest? The current message is:
Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
I don't see any other messages with "table.column". Do you want?
Specify OWNED BY column or OWNED BY NONE.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.
What do you suggest? The current message is:
Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.What do you suggest? The current message is:
Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.
OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2020-03-23 02:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.What do you suggest? The current message is:
Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then.
The same criticism applies to the documentation patch, I think. We
don't usually make the schema part explicit.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:35:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-03-23 02:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.What do you suggest? The current message is:
Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then.
The same criticism applies to the documentation patch, I think. We don't
usually make the schema part explicit.
That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is
what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use
a schema name qualification:
$ grep -l '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml
create_view.sgml
reindexdb.sgml
The reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense.
The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and
should probably be removed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +On 2020-03-24 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is
what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use
a schema name qualification:$ grep -l '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml
create_view.sgml
reindexdb.sgmlThe reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense.
The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and
should probably be removed.
The CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW example is making a specific point about
schema qualification, which is explained below the example.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:46:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-03-24 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is
what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use
a schema name qualification:$ grep -l '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml
create_view.sgml
reindexdb.sgmlThe reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense.
The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and
should probably be removed.The CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW example is making a specific point about schema
qualification, which is explained below the example.
OK, so I guess everything is fine and we can just go back to other
business. :-) Sorry for the distraction.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +