Thread: pgsql: Doc: remove some long-obsolete information frominstallation.sgm
Doc: remove some long-obsolete information from installation.sgml. Section 16.2 pointed to platform-specific FAQ files that we removed way back in 8.4. Section 16.7 contained a bunch of information about AIX and HPUX bugs that were squashed decades ago, plus discussions of old compiler versions that are certainly moot now that we require C99 support. Since we're obviously not maintaining this stuff carefully, just remove it. The HPUX sub-section seems like it can go away entirely, since everything it said that was still applicable was redundant with material elsewhere in the chapter. In passing, I couldn't resist the temptation to do a small amount of copy-editing on nearby text. Back-patch to v12, since this stuff is surely obsolete in any branch that requires C99. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15538.1567042743@sss.pgh.pa.us Branch ------ REL_12_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/359209835223db95fa589064d8f7548e17da287c Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml | 311 ++++------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 283 deletions(-)
Re: pgsql: Doc: remove some long-obsolete information frominstallation.sgm
From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 2019-08-30 19:02, Tom Lane wrote: > Doc: remove some long-obsolete information from installation.sgml. - It is a fully native build and uses no additional software like - MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on the main - PostgreSQL web site. + The Visual C++ build is recommended, as it is fully native and uses no + additional software like MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on + the main PostgreSQL web site. Is this correct? MinGW builds are also native builds. The old wording was shaky but the new wording (inserting "... is recommended, as ...") makes it sound like that there is something wrong with the MinGW build compared to the MSVC build. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Doc: remove some long-obsolete information from installation.sgml. > - It is a fully native build and uses no additional software like > - MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on the main > - PostgreSQL web site. > + The Visual C++ build is recommended, as it is fully native and uses no > + additional software like MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on > + the main PostgreSQL web site. > Is this correct? MinGW builds are also native builds. The old wording > was shaky but the new wording (inserting "... is recommended, as ...") > makes it sound like that there is something wrong with the MinGW build > compared to the MSVC build. So did the old wording, it seemed to me. I'm happy to remove the sentence altogether if there's no reason to be pushing people away from MinGW. Should we also rethink the sentence I added at the top of the chapter, pointing Windows people to chapter 17? regards, tom lane
Re: pgsql: Doc: remove some long-obsolete information frominstallation.sgm
From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 2019-09-01 23:34, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> Doc: remove some long-obsolete information from installation.sgml. > >> - It is a fully native build and uses no additional software like >> - MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on the main >> - PostgreSQL web site. >> + The Visual C++ build is recommended, as it is fully native and uses no >> + additional software like MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on >> + the main PostgreSQL web site. > >> Is this correct? MinGW builds are also native builds. The old wording >> was shaky but the new wording (inserting "... is recommended, as ...") >> makes it sound like that there is something wrong with the MinGW build >> compared to the MSVC build. > > So did the old wording, it seemed to me. I'm happy to remove the sentence > altogether if there's no reason to be pushing people away from MinGW. > Should we also rethink the sentence I added at the top of the chapter, > pointing Windows people to chapter 17? Yeah, I suggest this: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml index 1f2f7d9957..6e79133681 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/installation.sgml @@ -21,10 +21,6 @@ <title>Installation from Source Code</title> distribution. If you are installing a pre-packaged distribution, such as an RPM or Debian package, ignore this chapter and read the packager's instructions instead. - Also, this chapter does not describe the preferred way to install - <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> on Microsoft - Windows<phrase condition="standalone-ignore"> (for that, see - <xref linkend="install-windows"/>)</phrase>. </para> <sect1 id="install-short"> @@ -2484,9 +2480,7 @@ <title>MinGW/Native Windows</title> The MinGW build procedure uses the normal build system described in this chapter; the Visual C++ build works completely differently and is described in <xref linkend="install-windows"/>. - The Visual C++ build is recommended, as it is fully native and uses no - additional software like MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on - the main PostgreSQL web site. + A ready-made installer is available on the main PostgreSQL web site. </para> <para> -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2019-09-01 23:34, Tom Lane wrote: >> So did the old wording, it seemed to me. I'm happy to remove the sentence >> altogether if there's no reason to be pushing people away from MinGW. >> Should we also rethink the sentence I added at the top of the chapter, >> pointing Windows people to chapter 17? > Yeah, I suggest this: > ... Hm, I'm tempted to also drop the sentence about the "ready-made installer" then. It doesn't particularly belong here, and the only way to read it is as a nudge to not use the MinGW build process. regards, tom lane
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Yeah, I suggest this: > - Also, this chapter does not describe the preferred way to install > - <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> on Microsoft > - Windows<phrase condition="standalone-ignore"> (for that, see > - <xref linkend="install-windows"/>)</phrase>. Also, I don't especially agree with removing that entirely: people should not have to read to near the end of the chapter to discover that they should have been reading some other chapter. How about something like "If you wish to use Microsoft's Visual Studio to build PostgreSQL, do not read this chapter; see Chapter 17 instead"? regards, tom lane
Re: pgsql: Doc: remove some long-obsolete information frominstallation.sgm
From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 2019-09-06 15:28, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 2019-09-01 23:34, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So did the old wording, it seemed to me. I'm happy to remove the sentence >>> altogether if there's no reason to be pushing people away from MinGW. >>> Should we also rethink the sentence I added at the top of the chapter, >>> pointing Windows people to chapter 17? > >> Yeah, I suggest this: >> ... > > Hm, I'm tempted to also drop the sentence about the "ready-made installer" > then. It doesn't particularly belong here, and the only way to read it > is as a nudge to not use the MinGW build process. Agreed, it seems out of place there. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Re: pgsql: Doc: remove some long-obsolete information frominstallation.sgm
From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 2019-09-06 15:37, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Yeah, I suggest this: > >> - Also, this chapter does not describe the preferred way to install >> - <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> on Microsoft >> - Windows<phrase condition="standalone-ignore"> (for that, see >> - <xref linkend="install-windows"/>)</phrase>. > > Also, I don't especially agree with removing that entirely: people should > not have to read to near the end of the chapter to discover that they > should have been reading some other chapter. How about something like > "If you wish to use Microsoft's Visual Studio to build PostgreSQL, do not > read this chapter; see Chapter 17 instead"? That sounds good. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2019-09-06 15:37, Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, I don't especially agree with removing that entirely: people should >> not have to read to near the end of the chapter to discover that they >> should have been reading some other chapter. How about something like >> "If you wish to use Microsoft's Visual Studio to build PostgreSQL, do not >> read this chapter; see Chapter 17 instead"? > That sounds good. OK, tweaked it along those lines. regards, tom lane