Re: CREATE TABLE fails - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Igor Korot
Subject Re: CREATE TABLE fails
Date
Msg-id CA+FnnTx_RkQRiE5P3UiMD-uFANoZrOkfsx_Fznv_y47SHf3fHw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: CREATE TABLE fails  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: CREATE TABLE fails
List pgsql-general
David,

On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 5:04 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, March 8, 2026, Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> wrote:
David,

On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 6:49 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 8, 2026, Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So the "WITH " clause is definitely available for indexes.
>
>
> Yeah, given you aren’t getting a syntax error all this advice to change the syntax is wrong.  Though assuming you meant to apply it to the table was at least reasonable given the lack of confirmed intent statement for what the command should be doing.

Thanks.
It is a little confusing how it is written in the docs.

But I'm not sure how to explain it better. ;-)


Yeah, using the same term for two separate things isn’t ideal.  Using table_storage_parameters and index_storage_parameters separately, and directly pointing the later to the create index page, would probably be better than an overlookable single sentence in the big storage parameters paragraph.

I am not sure. But looking at the docs I point to it’s confusing.

It doesn’t say that they are documented in CREATE INDEX.

Maybe just add something like:

“Those storage parameters are for table only. If you need ones for index - check CREATE INDEX page.”

Maybe put that where the WITH clause is explained.

This emphasizes the difference between them.

What do you think?

Thank you.


David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE fails
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE fails