Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables

On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:29 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://postgr.es/m/CAEoWx2nJ71hy8R614HQr7vQhkBReO9AANPODPg0aSQs74eOdLQ@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > <v1-0001-docs-clarify-ALTER-TABLE-behavior-on-partitioned-.patch>
>
> Added to CF: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6379/
>
>
Fairly easy to review in its current form.

I've included my changes as a patch over your version 1.

The main points of interest:

Saying that "ONLY" is a no-op when the observed behavior is that only
the mentioned tables are affected seems wrong. I've removed those
instances.

I tried to keep the "and 'is implicitly <actioned>" verbiage consistent
throughout. "Implicitly present" just seems off regardless of consistency.

"new partitions created in the future" - this is wordy given that "new"
implies "created in the future". Went with a simple "Newly created
partitions".

I did mentally note at the end of this review session that quite a bit of
text is spent saying how "create table" works in this "alter table"
reference. I didn't try to address it though.

You were using "can be applied independently" when in fact one "must"
specify all desired tables to be acted upon in those sub-commands. And, in
that case in particular, if ONLY is accepted it would just do what the
command already does. I removed the mention of ONLY in these "must" cases.

The majority of additions you made and existing mentions of "individual
partitions" do not include the clarification of "(leaf)". I removed those
that did - it seems like an unnecessary clarification.

If one has dropped a constraint from a partitioned table there would be no
reason to expect that future newly created partitions might somehow have
it. I removed the wording that stated that this was the case.

It didn't seem necessary to point out that the obsolete backward compatible
syntax for OIDS doesn't apply to partition-related tables.

Overall it looks good. The mentions of "newly created ... do [not]
inherit" is my only place of doubt. I'd be inclined to remove them all,
and if they are not covered elsewhere, introduce a section to cover them in
the DDL chapter.

David J.