Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:06:22 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: lampacz@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Missing column_constraint explanation
Message-ID: <20180114020622.GO2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20171220090816.25744.72592@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAB7nPqRgrAuqT-xeEZqtmaT7SToKQrE3Vd+yxigd0xtiy88x9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171221031511.GX4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CAB7nPqTagNTV5LbKz3Jekrd2DkxoaER+7sPKPSmjkd-aY1foeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="w/hSYHrkFqoLN049"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB7nPqTagNTV5LbKz3Jekrd2DkxoaER+7sPKPSmjkd-aY1foeQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--w/hSYHrkFqoLN049
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael,

* Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrot=
e:
> > Now, if we could do that in such a way that we avoid having to actually
> > duplicate the 'source' for these productions into different places in
> > the documentation, that would be fantastic because it certainly isn't
> > fun having to find all the places that need to be updated, but I'm not
> > sure how easy that would be to do (and to make work with how psql's help
> > is generated...).
>=20
> You are looking for something like how feature-supported.sgml is
> handled after its automatic generation, except that in this case you
> just create a new sgml file which has the definition data you want to
> load, define it with <!ENTITY blah SYSTEM "blah.sgml">, and then load
> it using something like an entity &blah; in the CREATE or ALTER TABLE
> docs. That's a bit of refactoring though, but you could shape it by
> putting all those lower-level definitions in a subdirectory like
> sgml/defs or such, avoiding any duplication in those definitions.

I'm not really sure that we want to go there for this case though.
Perhaps others disagree, but that seems like a lot to avoid this
particular duplication, which really isn't all that bad.

This patch also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle of things, but
it still applies cleanly and I took another look at it today and it
looks good to me, so I'm going to stick it in the CF and mark it as
Needs Review for now.  Perhaps someone else can give it another
once-over to make sure everything looks good and, if so, mark it as
Ready for Committer and then I'll take care of it.

Thanks!

Stephen

--w/hSYHrkFqoLN049
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=nOdO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--w/hSYHrkFqoLN049--