From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: postgresql@zabel.one
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Mistake in Syntax definition of ALTER TABLE
In-reply-to: <166842656645.632.14900882231844845906@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <166842656645.632.14900882231844845906@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:49:26 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <955705.1668460316.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:11:56 -0500
Message-ID: <955706.1668460316@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/955706.1668460316%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> I think there's a mistake under "and table_constraint is:" where the
> different constraints are listed.
> Here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-altertable.html

> The definition here allows for CHECK constraints to be deferrable when they
> are not.

It's not a mistake, we are simply not trying to make the syntax diagram
reflect that particular implementation restriction.  I doubt that making
it do so would be an improvement: we'd have to have two kinds of
column_constraint in the diagram.

			regards, tom lane