To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Switching to XML 
In-reply-to: <27750.1165720745@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
References: <4579720E.4000707@dawninglight.net>
 <1165655250.2621.10.camel@josh>
	<19232.1165689161@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200612100315.47269.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<27750.1165720745@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:19:05 -0500"
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:24:57 -0500
Message-ID: <28680.1165728297@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

I wrote:
> With the patch it takes me about 5 minutes to do the jade step of the
> PDF build, using this morning's SGML sources.  (I don't know how to set
> the TeX configuration to get the pdfjadetex steps to go through, so I
> dunno about total time.)

OK, I read Peter's notes about suitable TeX configuration, and with
that plus suitably patched openjade I get this from a standing start:

$ time make postgres.pdf
... much output ...
Output written on postgres.pdf (1670 pages, 13561269 bytes).
Transcript written on postgres.log.

real    8m23.949s
user    8m14.263s
sys     0m9.241s
$

But my goodness it produces a lot of TeX warnings :-(.  I can understand
that no one was gonna look into those with a three-day turnaround time,
but maybe now we can think about cleaning them up?  Personally I
haven't used TeX/LaTeX in anger in about ten years, but most of what
scrolled past looked easily fixable, and at least some of it would
translate to visible ugliness in the output.

			regards, tom lane