Re: doc: alter table references bogus table-specific planner parameters

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 04:13, Justin Pryzby <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > I agree with the sentiment of the third doc change, but your patch
> removes
> > the mention of n_distinct, which isn't appropriate.
>
> I think it's correct to remove n_distinct there, as it's documented
> previously,
> since e5550d5f.  That's a per-attribute option (not storage) and can't be
> specified there.
>

OK, then agreed.

> The second change in your patch alters the meaning of the sentence in a
> way
> > that is counter to the first change. The name of these parameters is
> > "Storage Parameters" (in various places); I might agree with describing
> > them in text as "storage or planner parameters", but if you do that you
> > can't then just refer to "storage parameters" later, because if you do it
> > implies that planner parameters operate differently to storage
> parameters,
> > which they don't.
>
> The 2nd change is:
>
>        for details on the available parameters.  Note that the table
> contents
> -      will not be modified immediately by this command; depending on the
> +      will not be modified immediately by setting its storage parameters;
> depending on the
>        parameter you might need to rewrite the table to get the desired
> effects.
>
> I deliberately qualified that as referring only to "storage params" rather
> than
> "this command", since planner params never "modify the table contents".
> Possibly other instances in the document (and createtable) should be
> changed
> for consistency.
>

Yes, but it's not a correction, just a different preference of wording.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise