"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:
> Also the use of "and/or" in the previous version conveys the fact
> that operator class and ordering options are not mutually
> exclusive. But when using "any of the following" in the new text,
> doesn't it loose that meaning?
Yeah; and/or is perfectly fine here and doesn't need to be improved
on.
There's a bigger problem though, which is that these bits
are *also* missing any reference to opclass parameters.
I fixed that and pushed it.
regards, tom lane