The use "Postgres" in docs
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t77388psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v6 (message #6), August 18, 2026 at 03:29 PM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t77388_6 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t77388_6 && git checkout t77388_6Patchset v6 (message #6) is on t77388_6
The docs use PostgreSQL and not Postgres in all but two places, which I think
we should change like in the attached to be consistent. Any objections to this?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
Attachments:
postgres_title.diffapplication/octet-stream; name=postgres_title.diff; x-unix-mode=0644Download+4-2
On 2023-Mar-14, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
The docs use PostgreSQL and not Postgres in all but two places, which I think
we should change like in the attached to be consistent. Any objections to this?
Both are very new. No objection to the change.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On 3/14/23 7:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Mar-14, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
The docs use PostgreSQL and not Postgres in all but two places, which I think
we should change like in the attached to be consistent. Any objections to this?Both are very new. No objection to the change.
+1 -- good catch.
Jonathan
On 14 Mar 2023, at 13:55, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
On 3/14/23 7:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Mar-14, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
The docs use PostgreSQL and not Postgres in all but two places, which I think
we should change like in the attached to be consistent. Any objections to this?Both are very new. No objection to the change.
+1 -- good catch.
Applied, thanks!
--
Daniel Gustafsson
The Unique Indexes section (
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/indexes-unique.html) does not mention
the new NULLS [ NOT ] DISTINCT capability of indexes (
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-createindex.html), and it probably
should.
Specifically, it has the exact wording from previous versions (emphasis
added):
When an index is declared unique, multiple table
rows with equal indexed values are not allowed.
*Null values are not considered equal*.
We should consider adding "unless the NULLS NOT DISTINCT clause is used
when creating the index", or something to that effect.
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:24 -0700, Kirk Parker wrote:
The Unique Indexes section (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/indexes-unique.html)
does not mention the new NULLS [ NOT ] DISTINCT capability of indexes
(https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-createindex.html), and it probably should.Specifically, it has the exact wording from previous versions (emphasis added):
When an index is declared unique, multiple table
rows with equal indexed values are not allowed.
*Null values are not considered equal*.We should consider adding "unless the NULLS NOT DISTINCT clause is used when
creating the index", or something to that effect.
+1
Here is a patch for that.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe