Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files
Date
Msg-id 4d91a145-3915-4e0d-accb-29960edfdef7@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


On 2025-10-03 Fr 10:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
If you look at this more closely, creating postgres-full.xml and running 
the syntax check perform the same operations, except that the latter 
throws away the output.  So it seems redundant to build a whole new code 
path for this.  I think you can make the check target dependent on 
postgres-full.xml and be done, kind of like this (starting from 
pre-b2922562726):
Would it be unreasonable to discard the "check" target altogether?
It made sense back in the day when actually building the html docs
took many minutes.  But I haven't used it in years, so I wonder
if anyone else has either.
			


I have no objection. We'll need to work out what we're doing on the meson side, which is kinda where we came in ...


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing a few minor misusages of bms_union()
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Add memory_limit_hits to pg_stat_replication_slots