From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, emilioplatzer@gmail.com,
        pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Documentation for create unique index is insuficient and (because
 of that) incorrect
In-reply-to: <9ba37df7-156b-b983-65b5-85ed096818b9@postgresql.org>
References: <154031939560.30897.14677735588262722042@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20181120020542.GH28656@momjian.us>
 <9ba37df7-156b-b983-65b5-85ed096818b9@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:41:56 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11322.1542725958.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:59:18 -0500
Message-ID: <11323.1542725958@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 11/19/18 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:29:55PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>>> In https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/static/indexes-unique.html there are
>>> omited clausules

>> The first URL is an example and is not intended to be the complete
>> syntax.

> In fairness, the "INCLUDE" clause was added, which is new to PostgreSQL
> 11, so it could raise the question as to why aren't other clauses there.

Yes.  That was a dumb idea; the correct fix is to take that out, because
it's not appropriate here.  There might be room for an additional section
later in the chapter that discusses INCLUDE, but we shouldn't be
cluttering the discussion of fundamental concepts like unique indexes
with that.

			regards, tom lane