| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Markus Winand <markus(dot)winand(at)winand(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: where best to add ~ 400 words to the manual? |
| Date: | 2019-01-11 05:19:34 |
| Message-ID: | 5C382766.2080409@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/10/19 23:48, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 12/30/18 22:23, Chapman Flack wrote:
> (3) seems to be supported by (the only) precedent, the "Limits and
> Compatibility" sect3 within functions-posix-regexp.
>
> So, absent objection, I'll work on a Limits and Compatibility sect2
> within functions-xml.
One fly in the ointment: tables of contents seem to list sect1 and sect2
elements, but not sect3. So the "Limits and Compatibility" sect3 under
functions-posix-regexp does not clutter the overall "Functions and
Operators" ToC, but a "Limits and Compatibility" sect2 under
functions-xml would be visible there. Tucking it as a sect3 within an
existing sect2 would prevent that, but it is common information that
pertains to more than one of them, so that doesn't seem quite right.
Or is it ok to have a "Limits and Compatibility" visible in the ToC
under XML Functions?
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Imai, Yoshikazu | 2019-01-11 06:10:00 | RE: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2019-01-11 05:12:26 | Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename? |