On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:57 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:40 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 18:49 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:29 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 19:22 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > > > > May be attach the patch to hackers thread (this) as well?
> > > >
> > > > If you want, sure. I thought it was good enough if the thread
> > > > is accessible via the commitfest app.
> > >
> > > The addition is long enough that it deserved to be outside of parentheses.
> > >
> > > I think it's worth mentioning the exception but in a way that avoids
> > > repeating what's mentioned in the last paragraph of just the previous
> > > section. I don't have brilliant ideas about how to rephrase it.
> > >
> > > Maybe "Using ONLY to add or drop a constraint, other than PRIMARY and
> > > UNIQUE, on only the partitioned table is supported as long as there
> > > are no partitions. ...".
> >
> > I agree that the parenthesis is too long. I shortened it in the attached
> > patch. Is that acceptable?
>
> It's still longer than the actual sentence :). I am fine with it if
> somebody else finds it acceptable.
It still reads a bit weird to me. How about the attached wording instead?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/