On 1/20/22 12:25, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 1/19/22, 5:15 PM, "James Coleman" <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm open to the idea of wordsmithing here, of course, but I strongly
>> disagree that this is irrelevant data. There are plenty of
>> optimizations Postgres could theoretically implement but doesn't, so
>> measuring what should happen by what you think is obvious ("told it to
>> populate with default values - why do you need to check") is clearly
>> not valid.
>>
>> This patch actually came out of our specifically needing to verify
>> that this is true before an op precisely because docs aren't actually
>> clear and because we can't risk a large table scan under an exclusive
>> lock. We're clearly not the only ones with that question; it came up
>> in a comment on this blog post announcing the newly committed feature
>> [1].
> My initial reaction was similar to David's. It seems silly to
> document that we don't do something that seems obviously unnecessary.
> However, I think you make a convincing argument for including it. I
> agree with David's feedback on where this information should go.
>
I still don't understand the confusion. When you add a new column with a
non-null non-volatile default, none of the existing rows has any storage
for the new column, so there is nothing to scan and nothing to verify on
such rows. Only the catalog is changed. This is true whether or not the
new column is constrained by NOT NULL. I don't understand what people
think might have had to be verified by scanning the table.
If what's happening is not clear from the docs then by all means let's
make it clear. But in general I don't think we should talk about what we
used to do.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
