Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvc6-0003BG-Dz for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:30:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvc5-0000Eh-Bf for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:30:37 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvc5-0000EZ-5u for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:30:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvc3-0006Kb-0l for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:30:36 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 03AFUYZE002305; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:30:34 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: doc: add examples of creative use of unique expression indexes In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:49:17 +0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2303.1586532634.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:30:34 -0400 Message-ID: <2304.1586532634@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > doc: add examples of creative use of unique expression indexes > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/a9760d0f3cb523336b5fdd9d6c5985e= 39a8588a1 We had a complaint [1] that this dropped an example into the middle of two related paragraphs. I agree with that objection, and also notice that the extra example broke subsequent references to the "first example" and "second example". I'm also unhappy that the other addition that this commit made was dropped inside Example 11.3; if we're going to use markup at all, each one ought to be a coherent entity. On top of that, I don't find that either example actually adds anything to the discussion, as the same points are being made in the existing text. Therefore, I don't think it's worth trying to fix these problems, and propose just reverting this patch. regards, tom lane [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/158648685043.655.307474655532097= 0574%40wrigleys.postgresql.org