On 11/06/2012 01:40:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com> wrote:
> > So at this point I'm out of ideas. Unless somebody
> > can chime in with a clue I'm ready to give up.
>
> Frankly, I don't view this as enough of a problem to be worth
> spending
> time on.
Good by me. Reject the patch. If the build system
changes so the patch starts working somebody can worry
about it then.
> Actually, I'm not sure I view the formatting of that table
> as a problem at all, but if it is a problem it's not a big enough one
> to justify knocking ourselves out over it.
I got into it because I started to pl/pgsql RAISE error codes
and found it hard to scan the table for the section/one I wanted
while the remainder of my brain was occupied with the
code at hand. I had a feeling that my original patch,
which added an empty row, was not exactly kosher, but then
it seemed to help a lot -- and I didn't have good feelings
about the way the code presently simulates a column heading
either so I figured it wouldn't hurt to submit the
patch and get feedback.
FYI, I'm now looking the table of error codes on the
official PG 9.2 docs. It seems to be using the
website's style sheets, and the section "headings"
are not any bolder than the regular data
rows. I can't find a "bold"
style in the website's style sheets. The table,
IIRC, looks different when viewed with a file:///
url after building the docs. The sections
stand out a little more. So there's probably
a bug here, where the fix would be to update
the website's style sheets. (It's also possible
that the problem is in my browser, which is old.)
(FYI, I found the bolded section headings
viewed via a file:/// url to be not especially
helpful. That's what I was looking at when
I wrote the first patch.)
Regards,
Karl <kop@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein
