Re: Documentation for bootstrap data conversion

John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/7/18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> <filename>reformat_dat_file.pl</filename> preserves blank lines
>> and comment lines as-is.

> As it is now, it will actually collapse consecutive blank lines into
> one. I maintain that was necessary during conversion to get some
> semblance of consistency, but now it may not be a good idea to tie
> developers' hands in surprising ways if they want double blank lines
> in some places. It would be pretty easy to remove this behavior.
> Apologies if it was not documented well enough.

I did note that in some internal comments, but forgot it when writing
this. I agree that now that the conversion is done, it'd be better
to remove that special case. Would you send a patch for that?

> 2. I noticed the use of
> <structname>pg_xxx.h</structname>
> <structname>pg_xxx_d.h</structname>
> where I would expect <filename>. Not sure if it matters.

Good point. It likely doesn't matter in terms of the output, but
considering I was going to the trouble of using those instead of just
<literal> everywhere, would be better to choose the right one.

> 3. It seems the preferred style is to refer to "bootstrap" relations
> rather than "bootstrapped" relations. The attached patch makes code
> comments more like the docs in this regard.

Meh, I think either is fine really. I do recall changing something
in bki.sgml that referred to both "bootstrap relations" and "bootstrap
catalogs" in practically the same sentence. I think that *is* confusing,
because it's not obvious whether relation and catalog are meant to be
interchangeable terms (and, in general, they aren't). If we wanted to
do anything here I'd be more interested in s/relation/catalog/g in this
usage.

regards, tom lane