Re: [DOCS] Syntax for changing owner on sequence is not correct
On 8/9/17 05:35, [email protected] wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-altersequence.html > Description: > > Per documentation owner changing should use > owner to > this syntax doesn't work al 9.5 version > owned by > is working please correct because I spent over 3 hour until I figure out > what is the problem Are you saying that ALTER SEQUENCE ... OWNER TO doesn't work? It appears to work for everyone else. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] Syntax for changing owner on sequence is not correct
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut < [email protected]> wrote: > On 8/9/17 05:35, [email protected] wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/sql-altersequence.html > > Description: > > > > Per documentation owner changing should use > > owner to > > this syntax doesn't work al 9.5 version > > owned by > > is working please correct because I spent over 3 hour until I figure out > > what is the problem > > Are you saying that ALTER SEQUENCE ... OWNER TO doesn't work? It > appears to work for everyone else. > ​Sequences can have two owners - a role and, ​optionally, a table.column. The name following "OWNED BY" is a table.column (NONE to clear). The name following "OWNER TO" is a role (mandatory). David J.
Re: [DOCS] Use of term Master/Slave
On 8/7/17 17:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/1/17 13:33, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-07-31 21:13:48 +, [email protected] wrote: >>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >>> >>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/release-9-6.html >>> Description: >>> >>> Wondering why PostgreSQL still uses the terms master and slave when there >>> are other terms like primary/secondary that can be used in the same manner. >> >> Yea, I think we should be more careful from now on. I think several >> people already try, but it's not been a concerted effort so far. > > Here is a patch to remove remaining uses of "slave" in replication contexts. committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
