Re: [HACKERS] So what is the current documentation status?

"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> How are the docs (sources) not in sync? I found some words on
> PQsetNoticeProcessor() in libpq.3 which were not in an earlier version,
> and moved those into libpq.sgml.

There's bits and pieces in each file that are not in the other one ---
I'm afraid there's no substitute for going through both files manually
to bring libpq.sgml fully up to speed. I'm willing to do that; I was
just waiting until things had reached the point where everybody agrees
that the .sgml version is the one that will be maintained. The last
time I asked about this, I was told (by Bruce? I forget) that the man
page version was still the one to maintain. I'm not willing to do that
comparison more than once, so I left well enough alone for a while.

> Now, there *is* the issue of whether libpq.3 is appropriate for a man
> page. I believe it is not, since there is *so* much information needed
> to understand and since man pages have such a flat structure.

I concur; the libpq doco is unwieldy for a man page. I don't have any
problem with dropping the man page --- I'm just waiting for the
merry-go-round to come to a stop.

> Let me know how this sounds and what would be easiest for you. I'll see
> if I can get enough finished on the web site pages to update them with
> new info today.

If anyone has any un-checked-in changes for either libpq.3 or
libpq.sgml, please check them in soon or at least let me know about
them. I'll try to get to the documentation update work in a few days.

regards, tom lane