From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: cmax docs seem misleading
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+renyVYYboiTayRRE0j1oKpeB+NjEBSUXfwgEu6O0JESSmauQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+renyWVogpNSTug5e+PTMWmTOcj8UXsAhHuHiavsVU0rzNpUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1857026.1774813531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+renyVYYboiTayRRE0j1oKpeB+NjEBSUXfwgEu6O0JESSmauQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
	message dated "Sun, 29 Mar 2026 18:37:18 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <2584451.1774909586.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 18:26:26 -0400
Message-ID: <2584452.1774909586@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2584452.1774909586%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 12:45 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, this is a mess.  Nobody ever updated this text when we decided we
>> could pack those fields into one.  I think it would be better to do
>> what you suggest:

>>> ... And maybe we should be more drastic: combine cmin &
>>> cmax into one entry, and explain that they are two names for the same
>>> value, which might signify the insert cid, the delete cid, or a
>>> combocid.

> I agree that is plenty of detail for user-facing documentation. I
> think your suggested text is a big improvement.

Done like that, then.

			regards, tom lane