On 11/19/18 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:29:55PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/static/indexes-unique.html
>> Description:
>>
>> In https://www.pos
On 2018-Nov-20, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 11/19/18 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:29:55PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >>
> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/static/indexes-u
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> On 11/19/18 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:29:55PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>>> In https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/static/indexes-unique.html there are
>>> omited clausules
>> The first URL is an example and is not intended to
On 11/20/18 9:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
>> On 11/19/18 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:29:55PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
In https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/static/indexes-unique.html there are
omited clausules
>
>>> The
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> On 11/20/18 9:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes. That was a dumb idea; the correct fix is to take that out, because
>> it's not appropriate here. There might be room for an additional section
>> later in the chapter that discusses INCLUDE, but we shouldn't be
>> clutteri
I wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
>> Also +1 on having a section on covering indexes.
> I see Alvaro is on the same page here. I'll go write something
> later today.
So looking closer ... not only is the unique-index section not a very
good fit, but there is already a section that this does
On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> So what I think I should do is reformulate that discussion to talk
> about making covering indexes with INCLUDE, and then mention in
> passing that you can also do it without that as long as you don't mind
> the payload columns being part of the index semantics.
On 11/20/18 1:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> So what I think I should do is reformulate that discussion to talk
>> about making covering indexes with INCLUDE, and then mention in
>> passing that you can also do it without that as long as you don't mind
>> the p
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Nov-20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm also wondering whether to move that section someplace earlier
>> in chapter 11. Right now it's near the end because it's mostly
>> info about an implementation detail; but it wouldn't be hard to
>> make the argument that covering ind
