Re: Minor correction in alter_table.sgml

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Minor correction in alter_table.sgml
Date: 2016-11-30 16:17:10
Message-ID: 19669.1480522630@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Seems like this would be a bit better:

> ------
> All the actions, when acting on a single table and not using the ALL IN
> TABLESPACE form, except RENAME and SET SCHEMA, can be combined into a
> list of multiple alterations to be applied.
> ------

> I note that we say 'in parallel', but given that we have actual parallel
> operations now, we should probably shy away from using that except in
> cases where we actually mean operations utilizing multiple parallel
> processes.

I follow your beef with use of the word "parallel", but your proposed
rewording loses the entire point of multiple actions per ALTER TABLE;
namely that they're accomplished without repeated scans of the table.

Also the above seems a bit clunky; doesn't ALL IN TABLESPACE fall outside
the restriction "acting on a single table"?

So maybe something like

All the forms of ALTER TABLE that act on a single table,
except RENAME and SET SCHEMA, can be combined into a
list of multiple alterations to be applied together.

We would have to enlarge on what "together" means, but I think there may
already be text explaining that further down.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2016-11-30 16:19:35 Re: Mail thread references in commits
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-11-30 15:56:14 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take