Re: ALTER COLUMN ... SET EXPRESSION to alter stored generated column's expression

From: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vaibhav Dalvi <vaibhav(dot)dalvi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER COLUMN ... SET EXPRESSION to alter stored generated column's expression
Date: 2023-09-13 08:57:52
Message-ID: CACG=ezZFGjSY0fO=Swz5ec4U7kDGzx1_h+FnANaNhixEepVA8g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi!

I'm pretty much like the idea of the patch. Looks like an overlook in SQL
standard for me.
Anyway, patch apply with no conflicts and implements described
functionality.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 03:06, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> wrote:

>
> I don't like this part of the patch at all. Not only is the
> documentation only half baked, but the entire concept of the two
> commands is different. Especially since I believe the command should
> also create a generated column from a non-generated one.

But I have to agree with Vik Fearing, we can make this patch better, should
we?
I totally understand your intentions to keep the code flow simple and reuse
existing code as much
as possible. But in terms of semantics of these commands, they are quite
different from each other.
And in terms of reading of the code, this makes it even harder to
understand what is going on here.
So, in my view, consider split these commands.

Hope, that helps. Again, I'm +1 for this patch.

--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-09-13 09:28:45 Re: [dynahash] do not refill the hashkey after hash_search
Previous Message jian he 2023-09-13 08:55:23 Re: Cleaning up array_in()