Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
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 21:34:56
Message-ID: 20528.1092087296@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

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:

<sect1 id="functions-sequence">
<title>Sequence Manipulation Functions</title>

<indexterm>
<primary>sequence</primary>
</indexterm>
<indexterm>
<primary>nextval</primary>
</indexterm>
<indexterm>
<primary>currval</primary>
</indexterm>
<indexterm>
<primary>setval</primary>
</indexterm>

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2004-08-09 21:40:10 Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Previous Message David Fetter 2004-08-09 21:27:37 Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions