> On Jan 8, 2026, at 09:38, Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 07:13, Robert Treat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2026 at 11:30 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 2026, at 10:54, Robert Treat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> Thanks you very much for your review.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 2:22 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Hacker,
>> <snip>
>>> 2. In sub-command details section, "ADD COLUMN [ IF NOT EXISTS ]” missed
>>> “[]" with “COLUMN”, which is misleading, because “COLUMN” is actually
>>> optional.
>>>
>>> Seems technically correct and potentially useful, and I see you
>>> handled this for the DROP COLUMN variant as well, so I could see a +1
>>> on this one.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. For all “alter column” sub-commands, "ALTER [ COLUMN ]” are omitted,
>>> which is also confusing, because none of other sub-commands omit their
>>> prefix part.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm... I'm curious what you find confusing about this. Is the
>>> confusion in trying to find or understand the information presented,
>>> or confusing as to why it isn't all documented the same way? The
>>> downside of your "fix" is that this introduces a lot of extra text
>>> that is more or less noise, especially for folks trying to skim the
>>> documents looking for very specific command references. And while I
>>> agree that we aren't 100% consistent on this within the ALTER TABLE
>>> subcommands, we use this same mixed pattern of omission on other pages
>>> (see ALTER TYPE for instance). If we were to insist on making this
>>> consistent here, I think we'd probably need to look at other pages as
>>> well and evaluate or update them too. I'm not sure that would be an
>>> improvement though.
>>>
>>>
>>> The confusion came from my own first-time reading of the documentation.
>>> Since the page is quite long, when I was reading the action descriptions
>>> and wanted to confirm the exact sub-command syntax, I often had to scroll
>>> back up to the syntax section. That led me to think it might be helpful to
>>> include the full sub-command form directly with the action descriptions.
>>>
>>> That said, I understand your concern. The change did make the text longer
>>> and added noise. In v2, I’ve therefore reverted that broader change. As you
>>> pointed out, if we were to pursue this kind of consistency, it would need
>>> to be handled across other similar pages as well, which would be better
>>> done as a dedicated and more carefully scoped patch.
>>>
>>> So, v2’s scope is significantly reduced, only a fix for my original point 2
>>> is retained.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me and seems like an improvement, so +1.
>>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thank you very much for your review. This is the CF entry
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6328/, you may add you as a reviewer.
> And I just changed the status to Ready for Committer.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Chao Li (Evan)
> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
> https://www.highgo.com/
Bump. This is a tiny doc fix.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
