| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2024-04-17 17:21:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20240417172134.4qeuadt7kyg6ewfi@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-04-17 02:46:53 -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > > This sounds to me like it would be a painful exercise with not a
> > > lot of benefit in the end.
> >
> > Maybe we could _verify_ the contents of func.sgml against pg_proc.
> >
>
> All of the functions redefined in catalog/system_functions.sql complicate
> using pg_proc.dat as a doc generator or source of validation. We'd probably
> do better to validate against a live instance, and even then the benefit
> wouldn't be great.
There are 80 'CREATE OR REPLACE's in system_functions.sql, 1016 occurrences of
func_table_entry in funcs.sgml and 3.3k functions in pg_proc. I'm not saying
that differences due to system_functions.sql wouldn't be annoying to deal
with, but it'd also be far from the end of the world.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-17 17:28:03 | Re: documentation structure |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2024-04-17 17:11:50 | Re: documentation structure |