| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2024-04-16 19:29:29 |
| Message-ID: | Zh7RmdqvbTjKceHL@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml. Particularly the
> > signature etc should just come from pg_proc.dat, it's pointlessly painful to
> > generate that by hand. And for a lot of the functions we should probably move
> > the existing func.sgml comments to the description in pg_proc.dat.
>
> Where are you going to get the examples and text descriptions from?
> (And no, I don't agree that the pg_description string should match
> what's in the docs. The description string has to be a short
> one-liner in just about every case.)
>
> 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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-04-16 20:10:22 | Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-16 19:05:32 | Re: documentation structure |