From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
cc: droptablestar@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Clarity in partial index example.
In-reply-to: <fbcb4420-881c-c1b3-4ef3-02ca38e29069@postgresql.org>
References: <155432280882.722.12392985690846288230@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <fbcb4420-881c-c1b3-4ef3-02ca38e29069@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:00:18 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <12857.1554330652.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:30:52 -0400
Message-ID: <12858.1554330652@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 4/3/19 4:20 PM, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept here but url =3D '/index.html' =
doesn't
>> have any effect on this? If that's the case I would suggest either remo=
ving
>> it from the first query or adding it to the second query.

> You're correct, the url =3D '/index.html' does not affect if the partial
> index is used in the example.

> Based on how the example is set up, I'd propose using the "url"
> parameter in both examples. I've attached a patch that does this, with
> some additional wording around the examples.

Yeah, this seems unnecessarily confusing.  I tweaked your extra wording
a bit --- I didn't like referring to the index as covering a range,
because it's really excluding a range not including one.

Pushed.

			regards, tom lane