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. regards, tom lane
