On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 3:18 AM Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > On 2025-01-03 01:25, Robert Treat wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM Masahiro Ikeda > > <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> The documentation seems to overlook the rewrite condition > >> when executing ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN. > >> > >> The current document states that a volatile DEFAULT will > >> trigger a rewrite of the table and its indexes. However, the > >> table and its indexes will also be rewritten when an IDENTITY > >> column is added, or when a column with a domain data type that > >> has constraints is added. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > > > > We still see a number of people asking (or confused) about table > > rewrites when adding columns, so I think the initial tip should > > remain, though I think it can be cleaned up a little. > > > > In the second section (alter_table.sgml) I liked the idea of adding > > these additional examples, though I tweaked the wording a bit to > > (hopefully) make it a little easier to read. > > > > Modified patch attached. > > Thanks! It looks good to me with one minor comment. > > Is the following intended to remove "However"? It seems that we don't > need to modify the lines if the initial tip remains. > > <para> > - However, if the default value is volatile (e.g., > - <function>clock_timestamp()</function>) > + If the default value is volatile (e.g., > <function>clock_timestamp()</function>) > each row will need to be updated with the value calculated at the > time >
Technically speaking, because we split the tip into two distinct paragraphs, use of the word however would be considered poor grammar, though I'll admit I only removed it because it felt superfluous. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
