Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables
Date: 2026-01-12 04:04:28
Message-ID: CAKFQuwabxFyFQob=RfKOV3upjxwomAzmGzSouN-h2ypuXz+dZg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday, January 11, 2026, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> The current behavior (not inherit) is questionable, we will need separate
> discussions for each of them to clarify if that’s intended or “bugs”. So,
> how about only retain the “newly created” material for these sub-commands
> and remove from the rests? In this case, I don’t think we need to update
> 5.12.
>
> What I am thinking is that, we will eventually remove the “newly created”
> material from these sub-commands, because next step we are going to fix the
> behavior on them one by one. Maybe some of them are designed to not
> “inherit the parent’s setting”, then we can add a paragraph/section to 5.12
> to describe that.
>

I’m against having material in the alter table command that doesn’t
describe the effects of executing alter table. I’d consider possibly
pointing out if the cascade behavior of alter table doesn’t match up with
the inherit behavior of create table. There doesn’t seem to be any such
discrepancies though. I also have my doubts that any of this behavior is
going to change. Better to behave as if it won’t.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2026-01-12 05:11:13 Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream
Previous Message Chao Li 2026-01-12 04:01:15 Re: file_fdw: Support multi-line HEADER option.