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>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables
Date: 2026-01-26 05:38:16
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbXVypHH=tQEGo-PskaOjnaPwheh7m-PBw-4QDd8bJMeg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday, January 25, 2026, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> How about this:
> ```
> <para>
> When applied to a partitioned table to rename columns or constraints,
> the corresponding partition columns and constraints are renamed
> implicitly. <literal>ONLY</literal> is not allowed, and the command
> cannot be used on individual partitions. When the rename target is the
> table name, only the named table is renamed.
> </para>
> ```
>

…are renamed implicitly, ONLY is not allowed, and the command cannot…(and
drop the mention of table renaming).

Or:

“When applied to a partitioned table’s name only the parent is changed,
partitions must be renamed separately. However, column or constraint
renaming must be done on the parent without ONLY, the corresponding
partition columns or constraints will be renamed implicitly.”

I find the repeated use of “table” “name(d)” and “rename(d)” in one
sentence worth avoiding.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2026-01-26 06:59:28 Re: Flush some statistics within running transactions
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2026-01-26 05:35:37 RE: Newly created replication slot may be invalidated by checkpoint