> 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/
