From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
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 15:46:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqG=uAB4mDL3Qw9hTsHodPameDwfaXWCovzR3vm-1zah-Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Stephen,
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Amit,
>
> * Amit Langote (Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
>> Perhaps, it should say something like:
>>
>> All the actions except RENAME, SET TABLESPACE (when using the ALL IN
>> TABLESPACE form) and SET SCHEMA can be combined into a list of multiple
>> alterations to apply in parallel.
>
> 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.
>
> Thoughts?
Sounds good to me.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-30 15:48:51 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-11-30 15:46:07 | Re: Mail thread references in commits |