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,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Documentation for create unique index is insuficient and (because
 of that) incorrect
In-reply-to: <c73feb8b-b0a7-23be-ce6b-f70d2529b70f@postgresql.org>
References: <154031939560.30897.14677735588262722042@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20181120020542.GH28656@momjian.us>
 <9ba37df7-156b-b983-65b5-85ed096818b9@postgresql.org>
 <11323.1542725958@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <c73feb8b-b0a7-23be-ce6b-f70d2529b70f@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:02:01 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11973.1542727002.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:16:42 -0500
Message-ID: <11974.1542727002@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 11/20/18 9:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> Shows how closely I read the docs. +1 on removing INCLUDE from UNIQUE
> indexes.
>
> Also +1 on having a section on covering indexes.

I see Alvaro is on the same page here.  I'll go write something
later today.

			regards, tom lane