On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > PG Doc comments form <nore...@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 <br...@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 +
