From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Comments on columns in the pg_catalog tables/views |
Date: | 2005-10-13 00:33:01 |
Message-ID: | 20051013003301.GA3481@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:11:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> >> Before I dive into this, is there some reason why the
> >> pg_catalog.* tables/views should not have comments that match the
> >> descriptions in the docs? I can see where this could cause some
> >> maintenance issues,
>
> > Yeah. If you can figure a way to auto-generate the comments from
> > the sgml files, it'd be nice, but I definitely don't want to
> > manually maintain Yet Another set of per-column information.
>
> Dept of second thoughts: actually, perhaps see if you can generate
> the pg_description entries from the C comments in the
> include/catalog header files. There's already a strong motivation
> to hold those to shorter-than-a-line length, whereas the column
> descriptions in catalogs.sgml tend to run on a little longer, and
> wouldn't format nicely in \dt+.
My thought is that by the time somebody is doing \dt+ (or equivalent
in other tools than psql) on a pg_catalog table or view, they need to
see details and are at most slightly concerned about the formatting.
Speaking of formatting, isn't there also a formatting TODO attached to
that? IOW, shouldn't these be de-coupled?
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 | 2005-10-13 00:39:18 | Re: Comments on columns in the pg_catalog tables/views |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-13 00:27:32 | Re: pgsql: Do all accesses to shared buffer headers through |