Thread: optionally schema-qualified for table_name
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-altersequence.html Description: Although I can see that table_name in OWNED BY clause can be optionally schema-qualified by ᅟcarefully reading "The specified table must have the same owner and be in the same schema as the sequence.", it would be good if "optionally schema-qualified" is explicitly noted somehow like other pages such as CREATE TABLE and CREATE VIEW. The same applies to CREATE SEQUENCE page.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:58:02AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-altersequence.html > Description: > > Although I can see that table_name in OWNED BY clause can be optionally > schema-qualified by ᅟcarefully reading "The specified table must have the > same owner and be in the same schema as the sequence.", it would be good if > "optionally schema-qualified" is explicitly noted somehow like other pages > such as CREATE TABLE and CREATE VIEW. The same applies to CREATE SEQUENCE > page. I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases. I thought maybe the schema wasn't mentioned because the table.column defaults to the sequence's schema, but it does not --- you have to specify the column's schema if would not be normally be found via search_path: CREATE SCHEMA zz; SET search_path = zz, public; CREATE TABLE zz.test (x INT); CREATE SEQUENCE zz.ss; ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY test.x; SET search_path = public, zz; ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY test.x; SET search_path = public; ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY test.x; --> ERROR: relation "test" does not exist ALTER SEQUENCE zz.ss OWNED BY zz.test.x; -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Attachment
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as
> adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases.
I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
other error message.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as
> > adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases.
>
> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
> other error message.
What do you suggest? The current message is:
Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
I don't see any other messages with "table.column". Do you want?
Specify OWNED BY column or OWNED BY NONE.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
>> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
>> other error message.
> What do you suggest? The current message is:
> Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that > >> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any > >> other error message. > > > What do you suggest? The current message is: > > > Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE. > > Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better > without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices. > The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit, > and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit > more than other places. You could as well complain that there's > nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices. OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2020-03-23 02:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that >>>> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any >>>> other error message. >> >>> What do you suggest? The current message is: >> >>> Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE. >> >> Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better >> without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices. >> The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit, >> and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit >> more than other places. You could as well complain that there's >> nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices. > > OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then. The same criticism applies to the documentation patch, I think. We don't usually make the schema part explicit. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:35:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-03-23 02:27, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
> > > > > error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
> > > > > other error message.
> > >
> > > > What do you suggest? The current message is:
> > >
> > > > Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
> > >
> > > Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
> > > without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
> > > The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
> > > and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
> > > more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
> > > nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.
> >
> > OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then.
>
> The same criticism applies to the documentation patch, I think. We don't
> usually make the schema part explicit.
That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is
what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use
a schema name qualification:
$ grep -l '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml
create_view.sgml
reindexdb.sgml
The reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense.
The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and
should probably be removed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2020-03-24 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: > That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is > what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use > a schema name qualification: > > $ grep -l '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml > create_view.sgml > reindexdb.sgml > > The reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense. > The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and > should probably be removed. The CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW example is making a specific point about schema qualification, which is explained below the example. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:46:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-03-24 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is > > what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use > > a schema name qualification: > > > > $ grep -l '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml > > create_view.sgml > > reindexdb.sgml > > > > The reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense. > > The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and > > should probably be removed. > > The CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW example is making a specific point about schema > qualification, which is explained below the example. OK, so I guess everything is fine and we can just go back to other business. :-) Sorry for the distraction. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +