Re: Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

Tom Lane wrote:
> I am still desperately unhappy with the choice to put the contrib docs
> where they were put. They are by no stretch of the imagination part of
> the "SQL Language", and there is no defense for having inserted them
> into the middle of the part, in front of substantially more widely
> interesting information such as concurrency control.

I think we need to decide where they will go; they are easy to move.

> Furthermore, labeling them "Standard Modules" is somebody's flight of
> wishful thinking --- if they were installed by default, they'd deserve
> such a title, but that's not happening any time soon.

That name needs adjustment too.

> I think there's a case for putting these pages under Part V Server
> Programming (though a few are not in fact server-side code), or under
> Part VI Reference (ignoring the fact that most of the text isn't in a
> uniform reference-page style ... though maybe we could plan to work
> towards that) or under Appendixes (though I'm sure there are people
> who will complain about that because their private agenda is to make
> these things as prominent as possible). Or we could make them a new
> top-level Part, probably just after Reference.

I think appendix is the right place myself.

> As for the title, how about "Available Add-On Modules", or something
> like that?

Yea, that is better. Someone didn't want "contrib" mentioned in the
title. The problem with "Available" is that it doesn't include
pgfoundry stuff which is _available_ too, just not shipped.

> BTW, why are neither contrib/dblink nor contrib/spi included in the
> conversion?

I see dblink:

http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/dblink.html

I assume spi wasn't done because it is just examples of SPI usage.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +