Re: Clarification on the docs - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Clarification on the docs
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwbz_-LUeGO0ABOXDSe5EbzQUUsMV7NMP1kr6cnBRfuDpQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Clarification on the docs  (Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Clarification on the docs
List pgsql-general
On Friday, April 11, 2025, Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, David,

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 9:04 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 6:49 PM Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, ALL,
On the https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-createindex.html#SQL-CREATEINDEX-STORAGE-PARAMETERS
its said:

[quote]
The optional WITH clause specifies storage parameters for the index.
Each index method has its own set of allowed storage parameters. The
B-tree, hash, GiST and SP-GiST index methods all accept this
parameter:
[/quote]


These are the index methods and the valid lists for each.  The docs are correct in how they remove duplication.  I'm undecided on whether that is the best presentation choice.  I would at minimum place a new paragraph after "own set of allowed storage parameters." so that "The B-tree, hash..." begins its own line.
 
This above looks much better. What stops you from pushing it?

There is no double meaning and everything is split nicely.

Because I’m undecided on what exactly would be an improvement and don’t care enough on the basis of this single question to put effort into figuring that out.  Committers read these and if one of them wants to act on my new paragraph suggestion great.  If not, it isn’t that big a deal.  For me, this doesn’t warrant a CF entry.

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Igor Korot
Date:
Subject: Re: Clarification on the docs
Next
From: "sivapostgres@yahoo.com"
Date:
Subject: Re: To take backup of Postgresql Database without large objects