Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 19:50:28 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: farmernick-pg@varteg.nz, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 11.7 Indexes on Expressions: editorial correction
Message-ID: <20200521235028.GA24478@momjian.us>
References: <158988567942.7029.7072931382965841497@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <29322.1589898721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <29322.1589898721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> > The paragraph that begins "If we were to declare this index UNIQUE,..."
> > refers to the index test1_lower_col1_idx, not to the test1_uniq_int index it
> > currently follows. It would appear the latter example was spliced into the
> > middle of discussing the former.
> 
> Yes, this was complained of before:
> 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1ikvbp-0005jW-E9%40gemulon.postgresql.org
> 
> I remain of the opinion that we'd be best off to just revert
> a9760d0f3 altogether.  Bruce's last proposal mostly did that,
> but it still insisted on muddying an existing example with an
> unrelated comment.

Muddy patch applied.  ;-)  I am open to clarifying it but I think we
need something in our docs about this idea.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +