Re: documentation structure

Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't know what to do about "I. SQL commands". It's obviously
>> impractical to promote that to a top-level section, because it's got a
>> zillion sub-pages which I don't think we want in the top-level
>> documentation index. But having it as one of several unnumbered
>> chapters interposed between 51 and 52 doesn't seem great either.

> I think that both the GUCs and the SQL reference could be top-level
> sections. For the GUCs there is an obvious split in sub-chapters,
> and the SQL reference could be a top-level section without any chapters
> under it.

I'd be in favor of promoting all three of the "Reference" things to
the top level, except that as Robert says, it seems likely that that
would end in having a hundred individual command reference pages
visible in the topmost table of contents. Also, if we manage to
suppress that, did we really make it any more prominent? Not sure.

Making "SQL commands" top-level with half a dozen subsections would
solve the visibility problem, but I'm not real eager to go there,
because I foresee endless arguments about which subsection a given
command goes in. Robert's point about wanting a single alphabetized
list is valid too (although you could imagine that being a list in an
introductory section, similar to what we have for system catalogs).

This might be a silly suggestion, but: could we just render the
"most important" chapter titles in a larger font?

regards, tom lane