"Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@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
