Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:29:29 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: documentation structure
Message-ID: <Zh7RmdqvbTjKceHL@momjian.us>
References: <CA+TgmoZ2F+K0j=6BOJLD=YfpJMdJRXC7sWmtXGRjx1Rq0x8PUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5tBcJUVQu=9zpr9C+Z=3SjxrECURtr_i1oipMqke4dpZXtyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240416182310.2j6g5fqqcwi4s6wm@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <1355791.1713294332@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1355791.1713294332@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zh7RmdqvbTjKceHL%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 03:05:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > I think we should work on generating a lot of func.sgml.  Particularly the
> > signature etc should just come from pg_proc.dat, it's pointlessly painful to
> > generate that by hand. And for a lot of the functions we should probably move
> > the existing func.sgml comments to the description in pg_proc.dat.
> 
> Where are you going to get the examples and text descriptions from?
> (And no, I don't agree that the pg_description string should match
> what's in the docs.  The description string has to be a short
> one-liner in just about every case.)
> 
> This sounds to me like it would be a painful exercise with not a
> lot of benefit in the end.

Maybe we could _verify_ the contents of func.sgml against pg_proc.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.