On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 07:03:49AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > There was a thread in January of 2012 where we discussed the idea of
> > pulling system table/column name descriptions from the SGML docs and
> > creating SQL comments for them:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg00837.php
> >
> > Magnus didn't seem to like the idea:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg00848.php
> >
> > Well, I'd expect some of those columns to get (at least over time)
> > significantly more detailed information than they have now. Certainly
> > more than you'd put in comments in the catalogs. And having some sort
> > of combination there seems to overcomplicate things...
> >
> > I think the idea of having the short descriptions in SQL and longer ones
> > in SGML is not maintainable. One idea would be to clip the SQL
> > description to be no longer than a specified number of characters, with
> > proper word break detection.
>
> I prefer overlong entries to machine-truncated ones. Seeing "Does the access
> method support ordered" for both pg_am.amcanorder and pg_am.amcanorderbyop
> thanks to the choice of truncation point does not seem like a win.
>
> We could store a short version in the SGML markup, solely for this process to
> extract. In its absence, use the documentation-exposed text. The extractor
> could emit a warning when it uses a string longer than N characters, serving
> as a hint to add short-version markup for some column. If that's too hard,
> though, I'd still prefer overlong entries to nothing or to truncated entries.
I think the simplest solution would be to place SGML comment markers
around text we want to extract from overly-long SGML descriptions.
Descriptions without SGML comments would be extracted unchanged.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
