Re: ALTER COLUMN ... SET EXPRESSION to alter stored generated column's expression
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
To: Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>,
Vaibhav Dalvi <vaibhav.dalvi@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-09-14T13:53:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
ALTER TABLE command to change generation expression
- 5d06e99a3cfc 17.0 landed
-
Refactor: separate function to find all objects depending on a column
- d4e66a39eb96 17.0 landed
-
Turn AT_PASS_* macros into an enum
- cea89c93a102 17.0 landed
Hi Amul, I share others opinion that this feature is useful. >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 03:06, Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I don't like this part of the patch at all. Not only is the >>> documentation only half baked, but the entire concept of the two >>> commands is different. Especially since I believe the command should >>> also create a generated column from a non-generated one. >> >> >> But I have to agree with Vik Fearing, we can make this patch better, should we? >> I totally understand your intentions to keep the code flow simple and reuse existing code as much >> as possible. But in terms of semantics of these commands, they are quite different from each other. >> And in terms of reading of the code, this makes it even harder to understand what is going on here. >> So, in my view, consider split these commands. > > > Ok, probably, I would work in that direction. I did the same thing that > SET/DROP DEFAULT does, despite semantic differences, and also, if I am not > missing anything, the code complexity should be the same as that. If we allow SET EXPRESSION to convert a non-generated column to a generated one, the current way of handling ONLY would yield mismatch between parent and child. That's not allowed as per the documentation [1]. In that sense not allowing SET to change the GENERATED status is better. I think that can be added as a V2 feature, if it overly complicates the patch Or at least till a point that becomes part of SQL standard. I think V1 patch can focus on changing the expression of a column which is already a generated column. Regarding code, I think we should place it where it's reasonable - following precedence is usually good. But I haven't reviewed the code to comment on it. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/ddl-generated-columns.html -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat