Re: [DOCS] Stats views and functions not in order?

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Stats views and functions not in order?
Date: 2023-01-30 06:12:33
Message-ID: CAHut+Ptn-G-SxdNN6Ygo9xOpU3qAK0Z7tpr4aRh4hHOWyCA-EQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:30 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 19.01.23 00:45, Peter Smith wrote:
> > The original $SUBJECT requirements evolved to also try to make each
> > view appear on a separate page after that was suggested by DavidJ [2].
> > I was unable to achieve per-page views "without radically changing the
> > document structure." [3], but DavidJ found a way [4] to do it using
> > refentry. I then wrote the patch v8-0003 using that strategy, which
> > after more rebasing became the v10-0001 you see today.
> >
> > I did prefer the view-per-page results (although I also only use HTML
> > docs). But my worry is that there seem still to be a few unknowns
> > about how this might affect other (not the HTML) renderings of the
> > docs. If you think that risk is too great, or if you feel this patch
> > will cause unwarranted link/bookmark grief, then I am happy to just
> > drop it.
>
> I'm wary of making semantic markup changes to achieve an ad-hoc
> presentation effects. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be
> considered carefully and globally.
>
> We could change the chunking boundary to be sect2 globally. This is
> easily configurable (chunk.section.depth).
>
> Thinking about it now, maybe this is what we need. As the documentation
> grows, as it clearly does, the depth of the structure increases and
> pages get longer. This can also be seen in other chapters.
>
> Of course, this would need to be tested and checked in more detail.
>

This chunk configuration idea sounds a better approach. If somebody
else wants to champion that change separately then I can maybe help to
review it.

Meanwhile, this pagination topic has strayed far away from the
original $SUBJECT, so I guess since there is nothing else pending this
thread's CF entry [1] can just be marked as "Committed" now?

------
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/3904/

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-01-30 06:13:45 Re: cutting down the TODO list thread
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-01-30 06:11:37 Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply