Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah. I bet there's a lot more useful stuff we could include also,
> but everything Andres mentioned is certainly good to put in there.
> Alternatively, some of this stuff could go into a README file instead
> of the documentation, but I think we've been leaning toward
> documenting more C stuff lately, and I'm fine with that.

I think we've mostly used READMEs for documentation that's relevant to
particular subparts of the source tree, eg, planner, nbtree, etc. Stuff
like this would only make sense if you put it in a top-level README, which
is a file that contains user-facing info in most projects including ours.
So I think sticking it into some portion of Part VII (Internals) is the
right approach.

It strikes me that the information in backend/utils/mmgr/README would be
a good candidate to move into the Internals SGML, too. Almost none of
that is "stuff you only care about when reading utils/mmgr/".

regards, tom lane