Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwabxFyFQob=RfKOV3upjxwomAzmGzSouN-h2ypuXz+dZg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables (Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday, January 11, 2026, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: