Re: cmax docs seem misleading

Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 12:45 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, this is a mess. Nobody ever updated this text when we decided we
>> could pack those fields into one. I think it would be better to do
>> what you suggest:

>>> ... And maybe we should be more drastic: combine cmin &
>>> cmax into one entry, and explain that they are two names for the same
>>> value, which might signify the insert cid, the delete cid, or a
>>> combocid.

> I agree that is plenty of detail for user-facing documentation. I
> think your suggested text is a big improvement.

Done like that, then.

regards, tom lane