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

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2023-01-18 15:55:28
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYeVeBenFaKx+CBoPVm1QxuytfTso6F1pBbRqm_y333Zg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 8:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > ... I was going for the html effect
> > of having these views chunked into their own pages, any other changes
> being
> > non-detrimental.
>
> But is that a result we want? It will for example break any bookmarks
> that people might have for these documentation entries. It will also
> pretty thoroughly break the cross-version navigation links in this
> part of the docs.

> Maybe the benefit is worth those costs, but I'm entirely not convinced
> of that. I think we need to tread pretty lightly when rearranging
> longstanding documentation-layout decisions.
>
>
Fair points.

The external linking can be solved with redirect rules, as I believe we've
done before, and fairly recently. Even if not I think when they see why
the break happened they will be happy for the improved user experience.

I do think it is important enough a change to warrant breaking the
cross-version navigation links. I can imagine a linking scheme that would
still work but I'm doubtful that this is important enough to expend the
development effort.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-01-18 15:55:56 Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-01-18 15:54:19 Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation