Re: doc review for v13 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: doc review for v13
Date
Msg-id 20200426161324.GS28974@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: doc review for v13  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: doc review for v13
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 02:47:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 04:35:45PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Added a few more.
> > And rebased on top of dbc60c5593f26dc777a3be032bff4fb4eab1ddd1
> 
> Thanks for the patch set, I have applied the most obvious parts (more
> or less 1/3) to reduce the load.  Here is a review of the rest.

Thanks - attached are the remaining undisputed portions..

> > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> > @@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ WITH ( MODULUS <replaceable class="parameter">numeric_literal</replaceable>, REM
> >        from the parent table will be created in the partition, if they don't
> >        already exist.
> >        If any of the <literal>CHECK</literal> constraints of the table being
> > -      attached is marked <literal>NO INHERIT</literal>, the command will fail;
> > +      attached are marked <literal>NO INHERIT</literal>, the command will fail;
> >        such constraints must be recreated without the
> >        <literal>NO INHERIT</literal> clause.
> >       </para>
>
> It seems to me that both are actually correct here.

I think my text is correct.  This would *also* be correct:

|       If any <literal>CHECK</literal> constraint on the table being
|       attached is marked <literal>NO INHERIT</literal>, the command will fail;

But not the hybrid: "If any OF THE .. is .."

-- 
Justin

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andy Fan
Date:
Subject: Re: Subplan result caching
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?