| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: documentation structure |
| Date: | 2024-04-16 19:05:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1355791.1713294332@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml. Particularly the
> signature etc should just come from pg_proc.dat, it's pointlessly painful to
> generate that by hand. And for a lot of the functions we should probably move
> the existing func.sgml comments to the description in pg_proc.dat.
Where are you going to get the examples and text descriptions from?
(And no, I don't agree that the pg_description string should match
what's in the docs. The description string has to be a short
one-liner in just about every case.)
This sounds to me like it would be a painful exercise with not a
lot of benefit in the end.
I do agree with Andrew that splitting func.sgml into multiple files
would be beneficial.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-04-16 19:29:29 | Re: documentation structure |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-16 18:58:39 | Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD |