DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=EVsl/FIbYtZ/N56T0usYaN/reUnB9szF1rPilP5G2mJDK520abfXNrcryXy1m1o6mH
	PZxLW40c3dX2Aty/Ymhj7t9mMy3jjxqcOpuBaYxgDh5GTYDDtv5RhS/6H7jiK15XIJdd
	418DoBglgDczOE9rNtC3DluELvV9x+oX9kmis=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=xXUbux=jr_fXwqRcWs8sSidSBKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <OFCDC1B866.8E8ECBF4-ONC125786B.0021822E-C125786B.002287CA@gruppoautostrade.it>
	<BANLkTi=xXUbux=jr_fXwqRcWs8sSidSBKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=3bmt0VgEg09v5Tz88kN-2NpnfDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] 9.0.3 pdf manual is missing bookmarks
To: gabriele.garuglieri@infoblu.it
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[CC'ing the -www list, since this affects the PDFs provided by the
website. Ugh, and resending without attachments since it looks like
the last attempt didn't make it to the list.]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:15 AM, =A0<gabriele.garuglieri@infoblu.it> wrote:
> the 9.0.2 has them, but 9.0.3 pdf documentation is missing the bookmarks.
> When looking for something is a real pain having to always use find or
> switch back to TOC pages.
>
> Any chance that you can generate and republish a corrected doc?

Hi Gabriele,

Thanks for taking the time to report this, and sorry for the delay in
following up. Just to clarify what (I think) Gabriele is complaining
about, here [1] is a screenshot from the Okular viewer of the
9.0.3 -A4 or -US PDFs from the website [2]. You can see that the
"Contents" pane in the top left is greyed out [3].

When I built these PDFs from the 9.0.3 tarball myself, the results
looked better [4]. Assuming this fixes Gabriele's problem, could we
update the website with the fixed versions [5] of the 9.0.3 PDFs?

Also, I noticed that the page of PDFs is not consistent with the PDF
naming scheme wrt. minor version numbers. We provide e.g.
"postgresql-8.4.6-A4.pdf" and "postgresql-9.0-A4.pdf". Personally, I
like having the minor version number included, but could we just be
consistent either way?

Josh

--
Footnotes / links:
[1] see http://kupershmidt.org/pg/screenshot_9.0.3_missing.png
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/
[3] The 8.2 A4 PDF appears to also be missing the Contents pane, or
"bookmarks", plus its index on page 1759 is missing entirely.
[4] see http://kupershmidt.org/pg/screenshot_9.0.3_fixed.png
[5] Fixed 9.0.3 PDFs:
=A0a.) http://kupershmidt.org/pg/postgres-9.0.3-A4_fixed.pdf
=A0b.) http://kupershmidt.org/pg/postgres-9.0.3-US_fixed.pdf