From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions |
Date: | 2004-08-09 21:27:37 |
Message-ID: | 20040809212737.GA3515@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I am not sure if DocBook could handle generating an index covering
> > just functions, or if we'd have to merge it with the general
> > index.
>
> I think it's possible -- with a bit of programming work. I doubt,
> however, that it's going to be all that useful. We're already
> having trouble categorizing things like IS NULL (function?,
> operator?, special construct?).
For docs, redundancy is fine, at least at the output level :)
> A function index would be quite unreliable ("It's not in the
> function index, so it's not supported."). Feel free to add general
> index entries for all functions, though.
Where?
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-09 21:34:56 | Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-08-09 21:20:33 | Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions |