Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files

From: Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2025-09-01 10:35:12
Message-ID: CA+v5N40gEq7CJHxUWo1Znbc9PjKWLv=bTjnr3Z8TvnWrdX8Zug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4 Aug 2025, at 4:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

On 2025-07-29 Tu 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:

OK. I'm inclined to do this after the CF finishes, to avoid collisions
with other patches. I assume it's going to make the CFbot fairly unhappy.

+1 for proceeding that way. (I did not look at whether the proposed
changes are sane, but I agree that this'll inevitably break a lot of
pending patches.)

Done.

While working on this https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6020/
I discovered that when changing for func/func-aggregate.sgml, the HTML
wasn’t marked for update.

IIUC the doc/Makefile should be updated as attached, right ?

Attachment Content-Type Size
sgml-func-Makefile.patch application/octet-stream 580 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Geier 2025-09-01 10:36:24 Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-09-01 10:18:46 Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends