Thread: incorrect (incomplete) description for "alter domain"
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-alterdomain.html Description: In the Synopsis section of https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdomain.html this is incorrect (incomplete): "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]" It should be "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD CONSTRAINT domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]"
On 2024-07-29 13:02 +0200, PG Doc comments form wrote: > In the Synopsis section of > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdomain.html > this is incorrect (incomplete): > "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]" > It should be > "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD CONSTRAINT domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]" No, the docs are correct. domain_constraint refers to this syntax defined by CREATE DOMAIN: "where constraint is: [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ] { NOT NULL | NULL | CHECK (expression) }" Also, PG 17 renames this to "domain_constraint" with commit 9895b35cb8 to align ALTER DOMAIN with CREATE DOMAIN. -- Erik
On Monday, July 29, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-alterdomain.html
Description:
In the Synopsis section of
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdomain. html
this is incorrect (incomplete):
"ALTER DOMAIN name ADD domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]"
It should be
"ALTER DOMAIN name ADD CONSTRAINT domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]"
The definition of “domain_constraint” includes the optional “constraint constraint_name” clause. Though reading the page and seeing the number of times we say “alter domain add constraint” I even more inclined to agree that bringing the word constraint there is desirable. I am not a huge fan of the indirect syntax references anyway. But I think your proposed fix is technically wrong since the word constraint is optional but your change makes it mandatory.
David J.
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, July 29, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> > wrote: >> In the Synopsis section of >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdomain.html >> this is incorrect (incomplete): >> "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]" >> It should be >> "ALTER DOMAIN name ADD CONSTRAINT domain_constraint [ NOT VALID ]" > The definition of “domain_constraint” includes the optional “constraint > constraint_name” clause. Though reading the page and seeing the number of > times we say “alter domain add constraint” I even more inclined to agree > that bringing the word constraint there is desirable. I am not a huge fan > of the indirect syntax references anyway. I think the page is technically correct, but I'm inclined to duplicate this text from the CREATE DOMAIN page: where domain_constraint is: [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ] { NOT NULL | NULL | CHECK (expression) } rather than making readers go look that up. Is that the same thing you're thinking, or did you have a different idea? regards, tom lane
I wrote:
> I think the page is technically correct, but I'm inclined to duplicate
> this text from the CREATE DOMAIN page:
> where domain_constraint is:
> [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
> { NOT NULL | NULL | CHECK (expression) }
> rather than making readers go look that up.
Actually, there *is* a bug in the description, because experimentation
shows that CREATE DOMAIN accepts NULL in this syntax (as advertised)
but ALTER DOMAIN does not. We could alternatively decide that that's
a code bug and make ALTER DOMAIN take it, but I don't think it's worth
any effort (and this behavior may actually have been intentional, too).
I think we should just add
where domain_constraint is:
[ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
{ NOT NULL | CHECK (expression) }
to the ALTER DOMAIN page, and then remove the claim that it's
identical to CREATE DOMAIN.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 8:17 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I wrote:
> I think the page is technically correct, but I'm inclined to duplicate
> this text from the CREATE DOMAIN page:
> where domain_constraint is:
> [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
> { NOT NULL | NULL | CHECK (expression) }
> rather than making readers go look that up.
Agreed
Actually, there *is* a bug in the description, because experimentation
shows that CREATE DOMAIN accepts NULL in this syntax (as advertised)
but ALTER DOMAIN does not. We could alternatively decide that that's
a code bug and make ALTER DOMAIN take it, but I don't think it's worth
any effort (and this behavior may actually have been intentional, too).
I think we should just add
where domain_constraint is:
[ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
{ NOT NULL | CHECK (expression) }
to the ALTER DOMAIN page, and then remove the claim that it's
identical to CREATE DOMAIN.
The inconsistency here and with create/alter table makes me want to make alter domain work as well. But I agree it isn't really worth the effort when one is supposed to use "drop not null" to accomplish the effect of making a domain nullable. But it does open the question of why we document "alter table alter column add null" - which does not get mentioned as being a non-standard option on the alter table page.
Both create table and create domain say:
NULL: This clause is only intended for compatibility with nonstandard SQL databases. Its use is discouraged in new applications.
But then create table goes on to say under Compatibility:
The NULL “constraint” (actually a non-constraint) is a PostgreSQL extension to the SQL standard ...
But create domain has no matching language; it claims full conformity.
That this "non-constraint" can have a name given seems unusual though done for ease of syntax I presume.
David J.
On 29.07.24 17:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I think the page is technically correct, but I'm inclined to duplicate
>> this text from the CREATE DOMAIN page:
>
>> where domain_constraint is:
>> [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
>> { NOT NULL | NULL | CHECK (expression) }
>
>> rather than making readers go look that up.
>
> Actually, there *is* a bug in the description, because experimentation
> shows that CREATE DOMAIN accepts NULL in this syntax (as advertised)
> but ALTER DOMAIN does not. We could alternatively decide that that's
> a code bug and make ALTER DOMAIN take it, but I don't think it's worth
> any effort (and this behavior may actually have been intentional, too).
> I think we should just add
>
> where domain_constraint is:
>
> [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
> { NOT NULL | CHECK (expression) }
>
> to the ALTER DOMAIN page, and then remove the claim that it's
> identical to CREATE DOMAIN.
There was some discussion about these issues (ALTER DOMAIN vs CREATE
DOMAIN reference page, as well as the NOT NULL constraint syntax) in and
around
<https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a4a344ea-9e79-4c42-a9af-899f85bd753b@eisentraut.org>.
All that ended up dying because the NOT NULL constraints feature was
reverted. But there were some subtle details about why the syntax is
the way it is and/or whether that's really intentional and how to
document it. Might be worth reviewing again.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 05:11:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Actually, there *is* a bug in the description, because experimentation
> > shows that CREATE DOMAIN accepts NULL in this syntax (as advertised)
> > but ALTER DOMAIN does not. We could alternatively decide that that's
> > a code bug and make ALTER DOMAIN take it, but I don't think it's worth
> > any effort (and this behavior may actually have been intentional, too).
> > I think we should just add
> >
> > where domain_constraint is:
> >
> > [ CONSTRAINT constraint_name ]
> > { NOT NULL | CHECK (expression) }
> >
> > to the ALTER DOMAIN page, and then remove the claim that it's
> > identical to CREATE DOMAIN.
>
> I have written the attached patch to document this. I assume this
> should be backpatched to PG 12.
Patch applied back to PG 12.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means
"Am I going to die soon?"