public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Re: Clarification on the docs 7+ messages / 3 participants [nested] [flat]
* Re: Clarification on the docs @ 2025-04-12 02:03 David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:08 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-19 23:16 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2025-04-12 02:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Igor Korot <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 6:49 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, ALL, > On the > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-createindex.html#SQL-CREATEINDEX-STORAGE-PARAMETERS > its said: > > [quote] > The optional WITH clause specifies storage parameters for the index. > Each index method has its own set of allowed storage parameters. The > B-tree, hash, GiST and SP-GiST index methods all accept this > parameter: > [/quote] > > These are the index methods and the valid lists for each. The docs are correct in how they remove duplication. I'm undecided on whether that is the best presentation choice. I would at minimum place a new paragraph after "own set of allowed storage parameters." so that "The B-tree, hash..." begins its own line. B-tree: fillfactor deduplicate_items Hash: fillfactor Gist: fillfactor buffering SP-Gist: fillfactor GIN: fastupdate gin_pending_list_limit BRIN: pages_per_range autosummarize David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification on the docs 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2025-04-12 03:08 ` Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:22 ` Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Igor Korot @ 2025-04-12 03:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> Hi, David, On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 9:04 PM David G. Johnston < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 6:49 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, ALL, >> On the >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-createindex.html#SQL-CREATEINDEX-STORAGE-PARAMETERS >> its said: >> >> [quote] >> The optional WITH clause specifies storage parameters for the index. >> Each index method has its own set of allowed storage parameters. The >> B-tree, hash, GiST and SP-GiST index methods all accept this >> parameter: >> [/quote] >> >> > These are the index methods and the valid lists for each. The docs are > correct in how they remove duplication. I'm undecided on whether that is > the best presentation choice. I would at minimum place a new paragraph > after "own set of allowed storage parameters." so that "The B-tree, > hash..." begins its own line. > > B-tree: > fillfactor > deduplicate_items > > Hash: > fillfactor > > Gist: > fillfactor > buffering > > SP-Gist: > fillfactor > > GIN: > fastupdate > gin_pending_list_limit > > BRIN: > pages_per_range > autosummarize > This above looks much better. What stops you from pushing it? There is no double meaning and everything is split nicely. Thank you. David J. > > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification on the docs 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:08 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> @ 2025-04-12 03:22 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 17:44 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2025-04-12 03:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Igor Korot <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> On Friday, April 11, 2025, Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, David, > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 9:04 PM David G. Johnston < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 6:49 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, ALL, >>> On the https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-createindex.html# >>> SQL-CREATEINDEX-STORAGE-PARAMETERS >>> its said: >>> >>> [quote] >>> The optional WITH clause specifies storage parameters for the index. >>> Each index method has its own set of allowed storage parameters. The >>> B-tree, hash, GiST and SP-GiST index methods all accept this >>> parameter: >>> [/quote] >>> >>> >> These are the index methods and the valid lists for each. The docs are >> correct in how they remove duplication. I'm undecided on whether that is >> the best presentation choice. I would at minimum place a new paragraph >> after "own set of allowed storage parameters." so that "The B-tree, >> hash..." begins its own line. >> > > This above looks much better. What stops you from pushing it? > > There is no double meaning and everything is split nicely. > Because I’m undecided on what exactly would be an improvement and don’t care enough on the basis of this single question to put effort into figuring that out. Committers read these and if one of them wants to act on my new paragraph suggestion great. If not, it isn’t that big a deal. For me, this doesn’t warrant a CF entry. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification on the docs 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:08 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:22 ` Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2025-04-12 17:44 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2025-04-12 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: Igor Korot <[email protected]>; pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> "David G. Johnston" <[email protected]> writes: > Because I’m undecided on what exactly would be an improvement and don’t > care enough on the basis of this single question to put effort into > figuring that out. Committers read these and if one of them wants to act > on my new paragraph suggestion great. If not, it isn’t that big a deal. > For me, this doesn’t warrant a CF entry. I agree this list has gotten a little messy over time, and also that it's not a big enough deal to warrant a formal patch process. I tried to improve matters at https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=78637a8be regards, tom lane ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification on the docs 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2025-04-19 23:16 ` Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-20 00:20 ` Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Igor Korot @ 2025-04-19 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> Hi, Dvid, On Fri, Apr 11, 2025, 9:04 PM David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 6:49 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, ALL, >> On the >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-createindex.html#SQL-CREATEINDEX-STORAGE-PARAMETERS >> its said: >> >> [quote] >> The optional WITH clause specifies storage parameters for the index. >> Each index method has its own set of allowed storage parameters. The >> B-tree, hash, GiST and SP-GiST index methods all accept this >> parameter: >> [/quote] >> >> > These are the index methods and the valid lists for each. The docs are > correct in how they remove duplication. I'm undecided on whether that is > the best presentation choice. I would at minimum place a new paragraph > after "own set of allowed storage parameters." so that "The B-tree, > hash..." begins its own line. > > B-tree: > fillfactor > deduplicate_items > > Hash: > fillfactor > > Gist: > fillfactor > buffering > > SP-Gist: > fillfactor > > GIN: > fastupdate > gin_pending_list_limit > > BRIN: > pages_per_range > autosummarize > Could you indicate the default value for every option here? Thank you. > David J. > > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification on the docs 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-19 23:16 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> @ 2025-04-20 00:20 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-20 00:32 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2025-04-20 00:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Igor Korot <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 4:17 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could you indicate the default value for every option here? > >> >> The descriptions clearly indicate the defaults for nearly all of them, and the one exception is a single click away (gin_pending_list_limit). I don't find that the information is hard to understand so no, I'm not going to spend my time summarizing it in an email. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Clarification on the docs 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-19 23:16 ` Re: Clarification on the docs Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-20 00:20 ` Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2025-04-20 00:32 ` Igor Korot <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Igor Korot @ 2025-04-20 00:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]> David, On Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 7:21 PM David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 4:17 PM Igor Korot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Could you indicate the default value for every option here? >> >>> >>> > The descriptions clearly indicate the defaults for nearly all of them, and > the one exception is a single click away (gin_pending_list_limit). > > I don't find that the information is hard to understand so no, I'm not > going to spend my time summarizing it in an email. > I just wanted to make it clear that if someone will put it like this in the docs - there should be a 3 column for the default value. Sorry for the confusion.. Thank you. > David J. > > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-04-20 00:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2025-04-12 02:03 Re: Clarification on the docs David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:08 ` Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 03:22 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-12 17:44 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2025-04-19 23:16 ` Igor Korot <[email protected]> 2025-04-20 00:20 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2025-04-20 00:32 ` Igor Korot <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox