From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de>,
        pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Docbook 5.x
In-reply-to: <26343.1462308910@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20160503193441.GA61759@alvherre.pgsql>
 <57290306.2090604@commandprompt.com> <26343.1462308910@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Tue, 03 May 2016 16:55:10 -0400"
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 17:05:06 -0400
Message-ID: <26758.1462309506@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

I wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> IIRC:
>> TGL submitted a patch for the openjade bug way back when that caused 
>> that issue.

> I think you're thinking of this:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/24388.1166800682@sss.pgh.pa.us

> I do not recall just when/how that got resolved upstream, or if they
> ever even responded to me.  But it must have been resolved, because the
> performance before that was patched was untenable even then, and would be
> far more so now considering how much our docs have grown since 2006.

Actually, further digging suggests that Peter found a way to hack our
stylesheets to avoid that openjade bug:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200612100315.47269.peter_e@gmx.net
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=465269b8a

So it's possible that the openjade bug is still there, but has been
defanged for our purposes.  In any case, there's still little reason
to think that it would apply to a different toolchain.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs