Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cMjy3-00066U-8S for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:18:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cMjy2-0002VU-9Y for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:18:38 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cMjy1-0002VK-Lp for pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:18:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cMjxz-0006PG-Dw for pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:18:36 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uBTNIYce029263 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:18:34 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org Subject: Inconsistent treatment of entries in new docs build MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29261.1483053514.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:18:34 -0500 Message-ID: <29262.1483053514@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org I made a change in 3c9d39848 that inserted these index entries: median median percentile The new docs toolchain doesn't complain about this, and it produces the output I wanted: median, Aggregate Expressions (see also percentile) However, "make oldhtml" complains: Processing HTML.index... 2705 entries loaded... collateindex.pl: duplicated index entry found: MEDIAN 1 entries ignored... Done. and it doesn't emit the "see also" entry. So, is what I wrote valid SGML? If so, can we fix the older build process to cope? If not, can we fix the new process to complain? The thing that is bothering me is that I back-patched this change without realizing that it wouldn't work in the back branches. This won't be the last such mistake, if we can't persuade the two toolchains to accept the same input. 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