On 6/23/16 10:37 PM, Justin Dearing wrote:
> Switched jobs recently and returning to postgres after a long hiatus.
> The docs are great, but I noticed a few things that could be improved
> in the area of catalot documentations.
>
> 1. The CREATE/ALTER/DROP doc pages should have a link to the
> corresponding pg_catalog and INFORMATION_schema tables and views for
> that object type.
The correspondence between these three is not exactly as cleanly
one-to-one as one might think. I think this would be very confusing and
not really helpful in practice.
> 2. pg_catalog docs should have a link to their corresponding
> information_schema table or view and visa versa.
same here
> 3. Perhaps this page (and its
> analogs) https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/catalogs.html should
> have a 1-3 word description of each catalog. Some are unintuitive.
> For example it took awhile to figure out pg_attribute was the list
> of columns.
That is an automatically generated table of contents.
> 4. OID columns should have a note saying something to the effect of "to
> get the text name of this simply use atttypid::REGTYPE"
We link the OID columns to their corresponding primary key table. We
don't have reg* types for everything anyway.
> 5. I discovered that pg_catalog.name <http://pg_catalog.name> is a
> built in type today, but its not listed as a built in type. I've yet
> to find it in the docs. It should either be listed in the built in
> types, or the list of built in types should link to the list of
> "other built in types" whereever they are.
You're right.
> If any of those suggestions are ameanable where are the docs for
> contributing to the docs?
You can send a patch to this list. It's not very different from
contributing code.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services