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

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:46 AM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:39 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was also wondering (but have not yet done) if the content *outside*
>> the tables should be reordered to match the table 28.1/28.2 order.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>

Thanks for the feedback/suggestions

>
> I would love to do away with the ToC listing of view names in 28.2 altogether.
>

OK, done. See patch 0006. To prevent all the views sections from
participating in the ToC I simply changed them to <sect3> instead of
<sect2>. I’m not 100% sure if this was a brilliant modification or a
total hack, but it does do exactly what you wanted.

> Also, make it so each view ends up being its own separate page.
>

I did not do this. AFAIK those views of chapter 54 get rendered to
separate pages only because they are top-level <sect1>. So I do not
know how to put all these stats views onto different pages without
radically changing the document structure. Anyway – doing this would
be incompatible with my <sect3> changes of patch 0006 (see above).

> The name of the views in the table should then be the hyperlinks to those pages.
>

OK done. See patch 0005. All the view names (in column one of the
tables) are hyperlinked to the views the same way as Chapter 54 does.
The tables are a lot cleaner now. A couple of inconsistent view ids
were also corrected.

> Basically the way Chapter 54.1 works. Though the interplay between the top Chapter 54 and 54.1 is a bit repetitive.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/views.html
>
> I wonder whether having the table be structured but the ToC be purely alphabetical would be considered a good idea...
>
> The tables need hyperlinks regardless. I wouldn't insist on changing the ordering to match the table, especially with the hyperlinks, but I also wouldn't reject it. Figuring out how to make them one-per-page would be time better spent though.
>

PSA new patches. Now there are 6 of them. If some of the earlier
patches are agreeable can those ones please be committed? (because I
think this patch may be susceptible to needing a big rebase if
anything in those tables changes).

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.