Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id 13876.1440710717@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah.  I bet there's a lot more useful stuff we could include also,
> but everything Andres mentioned is certainly good to put in there.
> Alternatively, some of this stuff could go into a README file instead
> of the documentation, but I think we've been leaning toward
> documenting more C stuff lately, and I'm fine with that.

I think we've mostly used READMEs for documentation that's relevant to
particular subparts of the source tree, eg, planner, nbtree, etc.  Stuff
like this would only make sense if you put it in a top-level README, which
is a file that contains user-facing info in most projects including ours.
So I think sticking it into some portion of Part VII (Internals) is the
right approach.

It strikes me that the information in backend/utils/mmgr/README would be
a good candidate to move into the Internals SGML, too.  Almost none of
that is "stuff you only care about when reading utils/mmgr/".
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Spurious standby query cancellations