Re: documentation structure
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: documentation structure |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1355791.1713294332@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: documentation structure (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: documentation structure
Re: documentation structure |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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. I do agree with Andrew that splitting func.sgml into multiple files would be beneficial. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: