Re: Partitioning docs (was Re: Range partitioning and overlap)

I wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I am curious as to your thoughts on unique indexes and whether/how to
>> better incorporate advice regarding the use of ON CONFLICT with
>> partitioning [1] vis-a-vis the overview's claim of:
>> "The partitioning substitutes for leading columns of indexes, reducing
>> index size and making it more likely that the heavily-used parts of the
>> indexes fit in memory" [2]

> Possibly a better way to write that claim is that partitioning can
> substitute for the upper levels of a huge index, rather than "leading
> columns" per se. That way of looking at it is still sensible when
> a partition covers more than one value of the key column.

I changed it like that and pushed.

regards, tom lane