From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff <threshar@torgo.978.org>
Subject: Re: Suggestion on reorganizing functions
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:20:33 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <6B84FBA0-EA28-11D8-A672-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org>
	<19661.1092083983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <19661.1092083983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408092320.33165.peter_e@gmx.net>

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?).  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.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/