Thread: Documentation fix for adding a column with a default value

Hi,

the tip in the "Adding a column" section is not true anymore since PostgreSQL 11:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-alter.html#DDL-ALTER-ADDING-A-COLUMN

Attached a patch proposal for this.

Regards
Daniel

>>The suggested change pares down the "Tip" to more of a brief "Note", which IMHO is a bit
>>terse for that section of the documentation (which has more of a tutorial character),
>>and the contents of the original tip basically still apply for volatile default values
>>anyway.
>>
>>I've attached another suggestion for rewording this which should also make the
>>mechanics of the operation a little clearer.

>Thank you, that better explains it. Looks good to me.

Shouldn't we add that to the current commit fest?

Regards
Daniel

> On 18 Jul 2019, at 17:46, Daniel Westermann (DWE) <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> wrote:
>
>>> The suggested change pares down the "Tip" to more of a brief "Note", which IMHO is a bit
>>> terse for that section of the documentation (which has more of a tutorial character),
>>> and the contents of the original tip basically still apply for volatile default values
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> I've attached another suggestion for rewording this which should also make the
>>> mechanics of the operation a little clearer.
>
>> Thank you, that better explains it. Looks good to me.
>
> Shouldn't we add that to the current commit fest?

The current commitfest is closed for new additions, but please add it to the
next one (2019-09) and it will be picked up then.

cheers ./daniel

On 7/19/19 12:51 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 18 Jul 2019, at 17:46, Daniel Westermann (DWE) <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The suggested change pares down the "Tip" to more of a brief "Note", which IMHO is a bit
>>>> terse for that section of the documentation (which has more of a tutorial character),
>>>> and the contents of the original tip basically still apply for volatile default values
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I've attached another suggestion for rewording this which should also make the
>>>> mechanics of the operation a little clearer.
>>
>>> Thank you, that better explains it. Looks good to me.
>>
>> Shouldn't we add that to the current commit fest?
> 
> The current commitfest is closed for new additions, but please add it to the
> next one (2019-09) and it will be picked up then.

To me it looks like a minor documentation correction to fix an omission
from a patch already in PostgreSQL.


Regards

Ian Barwick


-- 
  Ian Barwick                   https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:04:03AM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> To me it looks like a minor documentation correction to fix an omission
> from a patch already in PostgreSQL.

I think that it is better to register it in the commit fest anyway so
as we don't lose track of it.  Things tend to get lost easily as this
list has a lot of traffic.

I have been looking at the original patch from Daniel and got
surprised by the simple removal of the paragraph as this applies to
16828d5c where using volatile defaults still require a table rewrite.
Well, this just comes back to the point raised by Ian upthread ;p

Except for a couple of misplaced and missing markups and one typo, the
new paragraph looked fine, so committed down to v11 after fixing the
whole.
--
Michael