From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Graphic to visualize data flow between processes,
 buffers and files
In-reply-to: <568A9148.30303@purtz.de>
References: <568A9148.30303@purtz.de>
Comments: In-reply-to =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de>
 message dated "Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:35:36 +0100"
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:46:00 -0500
Message-ID: <12911.1451922360@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de> writes:
> I wonder whether we should have a graphic showing an overview of the 
> main backend processes and their interaction with memory and files - 
> something like figure 15-1 of: 
> https://docs.oracle.com/database/121/CNCPT/process.htm. Or is there a 
> general policy to avoid graphics in our documentation - or an advice to 
> use a special format for graphics?

There have been discussions about how to incorporate graphics, which
have failed to come to any consensus.  Nobody is particularly willing
to put a badly-formatted batch of raw numbers into git though, because
it'd be impossible to do any incremental updates on it and still have
useful git history.  There are also a bunch of questions about whether
the graphics would work in all the output formats we try to support.

This particular example doesn't really seem compelling enough to
justify finding a way over those hurdles ...

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs