Re: Get rid of "Section.N.N.N" on DOCs

From: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
To: Douglas Domingues da Silveira <douglas(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Get rid of "Section.N.N.N" on DOCs
Date: 2026-06-09 14:33:04
Message-ID: CAB-JLwYT_cUFDsCLgVD0_snoZuytWdn483hPnaCd8QHRMMbtWg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Em sex., 5 de jun. de 2026 às 16:00, Douglas Domingues da Silveira <
douglas(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> escreveu:

> I believe this is a good example where we can use AI, since the big thing
> about AI is the understanding of human language.
> As we need to check for hundreds of redundancy cases when replacing
> Section N.N.N with the Section name, AI can make things much easier. With
> that in mind, I created a small project for the AI to identify which cases
> would have redundancy in the SGML files and rewrite the texts.
>
What Douglas and I tried to do was show that the DOCs can be read more
easily.
Obviously, some terms have disappeared, such as "Section" and "Chapter,"
and this completely changes how we read the DOCs.
So the first thing we want you to notice is the smoothness with which the
text is read. You no longer need to hover the link to understand what it's
about, and there's no more duplication or confusion in the terminology.

Ultimately, we agree it's a big change, but we believe it's an interesting
one to adopt.

regards
Marcos

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2026-06-09 14:44:56 RE: Reject negative max_retention_duration values
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2026-06-09 14:24:36 Re: Reject negative max_retention_duration values