Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Date: 2004-08-09 21:40:10
Message-ID: 20040809214010.GC3515@fetter.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> A function index would be quite unreliable ("It's not in the
> >> function index, so it's not supported.").  Feel free to add general
> >> index entries for all functions, though.
> 
> > Where?
> 
> In func.sgml.  For example, this section seems adequately well indexed:

I think Jeff's original point was that he wanted some kind of index
for all functions, not just ones you already know how to classify.

Thanks for the pointer :)

>  <sect1 id="functions-sequence">
>   <title>Sequence Manipulation Functions</title>
> 
>   <indexterm>
>    <primary>sequence</primary>
>   </indexterm>
[snip]
> One thought though is that it's not clear when looking at the index that
> these entries are function names.  Would it be useful to decorate them
> somehow, eg by adding "()" to the names or setting them in a fixed-width
> font?

Sure :)

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-10 00:20:59
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-09 21:34:56
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group