Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>,Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.
Date: 2018-03-31 15:46:18
Message-ID: EBC6E556-0E98-41C9-ACE1-5B9CB638AF4D@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On March 31, 2018 8:43:37 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 3/29/18 14:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I'm *not* OK with expanding the scope of "make check"
>to include building the documentation. It's never had anything to do
>with docs before and I see no reason to start now. Personally, when
>I'm working on a patch, the doc updates if any are a completely
>separate
>matter. I don't want to waste cycles on testing docs when I'm trying
>to test code, any more than I would like the reverse (ie forcing a docs
>build to build code too).

They're a local check target in the docs directory. But it just checks postgres.xml, not additional targets. Don't think anybody proposed to add the doc check to the top-level check target.

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-03-31 15:58:34 Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-31 15:43:37 Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2018-03-31 15:53:22 Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-31 15:43:37 Re: pgsql: Add documentation for the JIT feature.