Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4F99FB327
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:16:48 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 79848-08; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:16:48 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from gauss.credativ.com (gauss.credativ.com [212.112.227.254])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A862B9FA610;
	Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:16:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from hawking.credativ.lan (exit.credativ.com [87.139.82.80])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by gauss.credativ.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE93078749;
	Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:09:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] broken doc
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:16:40 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, bruce@momjian.us,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <45E8B758.3030704@commandprompt.com>
	<46D78CCE.5000700@dunslane.net> <14619.1188533172@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <14619.1188533172@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708311116.41574.peter_e@gmx.net>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200708/51
X-Sequence-Number: 4398

Am Freitag, 31. August 2007 06:06 schrieb Tom Lane:
> I'm no expert in this, but looking at the complained-of bookindex.sgml
> entries makes me think that those index entries have a semantic conflict
> with these entries over in indices.sgml:
>
>    <indexterm>
>     <primary>GiST</primary>
>     <see>index</see>
>    </indexterm>

Yeah, apparently it is not supported to have a single term being a "see 
$elsewhere" and a direct link.  The semantics of that are debatable anyway.  
The index building tool just creates garbage in that case.

> Perhaps we need to have a meeting of the minds on who gets to define the
> primary index entries about GiST and GIN?

I'd say that the text search section shouldn't be the primary source on GiST 
and GIN, just like the section on arithmetic operators isn't the primary 
source on B-tree.  That might require moving some text around, though.

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