Re: Docs: Distinguish table and index storage parameters in CREATE TABLE

On Friday, April 3, 2026, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 3:35 PM Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
> > On 4/3/26 9:27 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> > > On 4/3/26 8:18 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > >> Per the discussion on -general [1] I propose that we stop using the
> > >> generic label storage_parameter on the create table reference page and
> > >> instead set up proper labels for table and index variants.
> > >
>
> It's sort of interesting that no one in the above discussion gave an
> example like:
> create table t (c int, constraint pk primary key (c) with (fillfactor
> = 90)) with (fillfactor = 100);
> and pointing out that where you put the parameter changes what it
> effects, so I'm a little skeptical that this patch would help the
> original discussion, but it certainly wouldn't hurt, so +1 from me.
>

Stretches my skills a bit but if the error message had been: (unrecognized
index storage parameter “autovacuum_enabled”) the syntax placement issue
may have been recognized working under the assumption the author knows
their intent is to modify the table (and vice-versa).

As a quick footgun prevention attempt (not a huge fan though):

Note, specifying a primary key or unique constraint as the final component
of create table makes assigning storage parameters to the wrong object more
likely.
(Added to the with clause section)

David J.