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

Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>,pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Date: 2004-08-09 21:27:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I am not sure if DocBook could handle generating an index covering
> > just functions, or if we'd have to merge it with the general
> > index.
> I think it's possible -- with a bit of programming work.  I doubt,
> however, that it's going to be all that useful.  We're already
> having trouble categorizing things like IS NULL (function?,
> operator?, special construct?).

For docs, redundancy is fine, at least at the output level :)

> 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.


David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-09 21:34:56
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-08-09 21:20:33
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group