Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files
Date: 2025-10-03 15:47:21
Message-ID: 4d91a145-3915-4e0d-accb-29960edfdef7@dunslane.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2025-10-03 Fr 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut<peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> If you look at this more closely, creating postgres-full.xml and running
>> the syntax check perform the same operations, except that the latter
>> throws away the output. So it seems redundant to build a whole new code
>> path for this. I think you can make the check target dependent on
>> postgres-full.xml and be done, kind of like this (starting from
>> pre-b2922562726):
> Would it be unreasonable to discard the "check" target altogether?
> It made sense back in the day when actually building the html docs
> took many minutes. But I haven't used it in years, so I wonder
> if anyone else has either.
>
>

I have no objection. We'll need to work out what we're doing on the
meson side, which is kinda where we came in ...

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2025-10-03 16:26:28 Re: Add memory_limit_hits to pg_stat_replication_slots
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-10-03 15:30:36 Re: Fixing a few minor misusages of bms_union()