Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:27:37 -0700
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Message-ID: <20040809212737.GA3515@fetter.org>
References: <6B84FBA0-EA28-11D8-A672-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org>
	<19661.1092083983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200408092320.33165.peter_e@gmx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200408092320.33165.peter_e@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I am not sure if DocBook could handle generating an index covering
> > just functions, or if we'd have to merge it with the general
> > index.
> 
> I think it's possible -- with a bit of programming work.  I doubt,
> however, that it's going to be all that useful.  We're already
> having trouble categorizing things like IS NULL (function?,
> operator?, special construct?).

For docs, redundancy is fine, at least at the output level :)

> A function index would be quite unreliable ("It's not in the
> function index, so it's not supported.").  Feel free to add general
> index entries for all functions, though.

Where?

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!