Re: Another modest proposal for docs formatting: catalog descriptions - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Jonathan S. Katz
Subject Re: Another modest proposal for docs formatting: catalog descriptions
Date
Msg-id 12e922b7-b3ef-0e63-60b5-dc50bc1450f6@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Another modest proposal for docs formatting: catalog descriptions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-docs
On 6/1/20 6:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZWYgxaBpbcOhbmVr?= <josef.simanek@gmail.com> writes:
>> I have spotted this change recently at progress monitoring devel docs (
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/progress-reporting.html#CREATE-INDEX-PROGRESS-REPORTING).
>> Current version seems a little chaotic since there are multiple tables on
>> the same page with 2 mixed layouts. Older layout (for example v12 one -
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/progress-reporting.html#CREATE-INDEX-PROGRESS-REPORTING)
>> is much easier to read for me.
>
>> Is this final change? I do not see any problem on this (progress
>> monitoring) page in old layout. Is there any example of problematic page?
>> Maybe there's a different way to solve this. For example instead of
>> in-lining long text as a column description, it should be possible to link
>> to detailed description in custom paragraph or table. See description
>> column at table 27.22. at progress monitoring page for column "phase" for
>> similar approach.
>
> I'm not planning on revisiting that work, no.  And converting every
> table/view description table into two (or more?) tables sure doesn't
> sound like an improvement.
>
> Perhaps there's a case for reformatting the phase-description tables
> in the progress monitoring section to look more like the view tables.
> (I hadn't paid much attention to them, since they weren't causing PDF
> rendering problems.)  On the other hand, you could argue that it's
> good that they don't look like the view tables, since the info they
> are presenting is fundamentally different.  I don't honestly see much
> wrong with the way it is now.

I think it looks fine. +1 for leaving it.

Jonathan


Attachment

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Another modest proposal for docs formatting: catalog descriptions
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_init_zero and wal_recycle