On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 12:04, David Gilman wrote:
> The revised patch is good. Please go ahead and commit whatever
> phrasing you or the other committers find acceptable. I don't really
> have any preferences in how this is exactly phrased, I just think it
> should be mentioned in the docs.
Thank
The revised patch is good. Please go ahead and commit whatever
phrasing you or the other committers find acceptable. I don't really
have any preferences in how this is exactly phrased, I just think it
should be mentioned in the docs.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:15 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Thu
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 05:01, Corey Huinker wrote:
> I'm ok with the wording as-is, but perhaps we can phrase it as "distinct" vs
> "not equal", thus leaning into the syntax a bit:
>
> By default, null values in a unique column are considered distinct, allowing
> multiple nulls in the column.
>
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 02:40, David Gilman wrote:
> The SQL Language part of the docs has a brief page on unique indexes.
> It doesn't mention the new NULLS NOT DISTINCT functionality on unique
> indexes and this is a good place to mention it, as it already warns
> the user about the old/default b
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:40 AM David Gilman
wrote:
> The SQL Language part of the docs has a brief page on unique indexes.
> It doesn't mention the new NULLS NOT DISTINCT functionality on unique
> indexes and this is a good place to mention it, as it already warns
> the user about the old/defau
The SQL Language part of the docs has a brief page on unique indexes.
It doesn't mention the new NULLS NOT DISTINCT functionality on unique
indexes and this is a good place to mention it, as it already warns
the user about the old/default behavior.
--
David Gilman
:DG<
From 5cb84716462611b84e6b2f
