Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting
	level than \pd
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
In-reply-to: <201104261544.p3QFidx17272@momjian.us>
References: <201104261544.p3QFidx17272@momjian.us>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:56:23 -0300
Message-Id: <1303833125-sup-9121@alvh.no-ip.org>
User-Agent: Sup/git
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:44:39 -0300 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > Also, most of the sections are pretty short.  Making each of them a
> > chapter seems a waste.  I think some of them deserve a full chapter
> > (dblink, citext?, hstore, intarray, ltree, pgbench, pgcrypto, pgtrgm?,
> > pg_upgrade, tablefunc), but most don't.  (Some of the others could,
> > perhaps, get moved under "Reference").
> > 
> > Would it work to move only some?
> 
> I think moving some would be even worse than what we have now, unless
> you can propose some logic about why they would be split.

Remember that this thread is about someone being unable to build a PDF
from our docs (and the proposed workaround being "insert more page
breaks"), not about how logical the documentation is.

In any case, the ones I listed are the ones that have more structure
documentation-wise (which also are the ones that have received more
attention and thus are of more interest to users), so there is some
logic behind it.

Am I saying that not all contrib modules are created equal?  Yes, I am.
So sue me.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support