Horton

Re: Documentation for create unique index is insuficient and (because of that) incorrect

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, emilioplatzer@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2018-11-20T15:16:42Z
Lists: pgsql-docs 
"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> 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
>> cluttering the discussion of fundamental concepts like unique indexes
>> with that.

> Shows how closely I read the docs. +1 on removing INCLUDE from UNIQUE
> indexes.
>
> 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.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Doc: rework introductory documentation about covering indexes.