From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: farmernick-pg@varteg.nz
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: 11.7 Indexes on Expressions: editorial correction
In-reply-to: <158988567942.7029.7072931382965841497@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <158988567942.7029.7072931382965841497@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 19 May 2020 10:54:39 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <29321.1589898721.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 10:32:01 -0400
Message-ID: <29322.1589898721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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 inde=
x it
> currently follows. It would appear the latter example was spliced into t=
he
> middle of discussing the former.

Yes, this was complained of before:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1ikvbp-0005jW-E9%40gemulon.pos=
tgresql.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.

			regards, tom lane