| From: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc pg_constraint.convalidated column description need update |
| Date: | 2025-06-09 14:32:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAJSLCQ3t1XBmq1NnRrStKLv9JC5LBX=v-GqudrYWHmfEEZaQ1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 12:00 AM jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 4:47 AM Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> > I think some of those changes are worth a second stab, so here is an
> > updated patch which removes the ancillary tagging and corresponding
> > line wrappings and focuses just on the wording/grammer improvements;
> > hopefully it will be easier to make sense of.
> >
>
> hi.
>
> <para>
> - Scanning a large table to verify a new foreign key or check constraint
> + Scanning a large table to verify new foreign key, check, or not
> null constraints
> can take a long time, and other updates to the table are locked out
> until the <command>ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT</command> command is
> committed. The main purpose of the <literal>NOT VALID</literal>
>
> here, it should be "not-null constraints"?
> Other than that, it looks good to me
Thanks for taking a look, and yes, I believe you are correct.
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-06-09 14:47:35 | Re: strange perf regression with data checksums |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-06-09 14:25:23 | Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage |