On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 07:03:49AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > There was a thread in January of 2012 where we discussed the idea of
> > pulling system table/column name descriptions from the SGML docs and
> > creating SQL comments for them:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg00837.php
> > Magnus didn't seem to like the idea:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg00848.php
> > Well, I'd expect some of those columns to get (at least over time)
> > significantly more detailed information than they have now. Certainly
> > more than you'd put in comments in the catalogs. And having some sort
> > of combination there seems to overcomplicate things...
> > I think the idea of having the short descriptions in SQL and longer ones
> > in SGML is not maintainable. One idea would be to clip the SQL
> > description to be no longer than a specified number of characters, with
> > proper word break detection.
> I prefer overlong entries to machine-truncated ones. Seeing "Does the access
> method support ordered" for both pg_am.amcanorder and pg_am.amcanorderbyop
> thanks to the choice of truncation point does not seem like a win.
> We could store a short version in the SGML markup, solely for this process to
> extract. In its absence, use the documentation-exposed text. The extractor
> could emit a warning when it uses a string longer than N characters, serving
> as a hint to add short-version markup for some column. If that's too hard,
> though, I'd still prefer overlong entries to nothing or to truncated entries.
I think the simplest solution would be to place SGML comment markers
around text we want to extract from overly-long SGML descriptions.
Descriptions without SGML comments would be extracted unchanged.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2012-10-13 15:45:13|
|Subject: Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM|
|Previous:||From: Guillaume Lelarge||Date: 2012-10-13 14:47:06|
|Subject: Bug in -c CLI option of pg_dump/pg_restore|