On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 02:32:47PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I had a go at this.
>
> I went with a more "bullet item" approach with my wording for INHERIT/
> NOINHERIT.
I tried to address that.
> The entire paragraph regarding how the INHERIT "option" works, as opposed to
> the attribute
On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 19:01 +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> CFBot shows that the patch does not apply anymore as in [1]:
There was a conflict with 46a0cd4cefb.
Updated version attached.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From 193d6d6c20f0c2976e0b63f1896978545def3fe8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:46 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> In the attached patch, I have copied the enumeration of relations from
> the CREATE INDEX page. I think this small redundance is alright, but I
> wouldn't mind if this gets removed from CREATE INDEX.
>
>
Tweaking the main paragraph a little.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 16:16, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 15:54 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 27.11.23 03:30, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > True; I don't find it documented that all objects in pg_class share a
> > > namespace and that constraints are implemented by indexes of
On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 15:26 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2024, at 15:23, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 11:08 +0100, gp...@free.fr wrote:
> > > for this "ALTER DATABASE" form, it should be mentioned that after
> > > execution of the command,
> > > the old data
