From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: JSON Functions and Operators Docs for v15 |
Date: | 2022-05-04 15:44:01 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbgw5EJL13xSWVUBYFXQSDXdQW48-heXT_TG-wVY0ZmrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 8:39 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Is there a thread I'm not finding where the upcoming JSON function
> > documentation is being made reasonably usable after doubling its size
> with
> > all the new JSON Table features that we've added? If nothing else, the
> > table of contents at the top of the page needs to be greatly expanded to
> > make seeing and navigating to all that is available a possibility.
>
> The entire structure of that text needs to be rethought, IMO, as it
> has been written with precisely no concern for fitting into our
> hard-won structure for func.sgml. Andrew muttered something about
> rewriting it awhile ago, but I don't know what progress he's made.
>
>
I suppose regardless of the answer, or which thread is used for the patch,
the question at hand is whether this is problematic enough to warrant an
open item. I would lean toward yes, we can decide how much reworking is
considered sufficient to clear the open item separately.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-05-04 15:45:55 | Re: automatically generating node support functions |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-05-04 15:42:48 | Re: JSON Functions and Operators Docs for v15 |