Re: documentation structure

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: documentation structure
Date: 2024-04-16 18:23:10
Message-ID: 20240416182310.2j6g5fqqcwi4s6wm@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2024-03-19 17:39:39 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> My own pet docs peeve is a purely editorial one: func.sgml is a 30k line
> beast, and I think there's a good case for splitting out at least the
> larger chunks of it.

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.

I suspect that we can't just generate all the documentation from pg_proc,
because of xrefs etc. Although perhaps we could just strip those out for
pg_proc.

We'd need to add some more metadata to pg_proc, for grouping kinds of
functions together. But that seems doable.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-04-16 18:25:53 Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-04-16 18:11:49 Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints