On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 2:17 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 09:29:13AM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:59 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:50 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > > > > Initially, that chapter did not document any system views.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we could make the system views a separate chapter?
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > There has not been any activity on this thread for a while, so I am
> > just wondering what I should do next about it:
> >
> > Are there any other opinions about this?
> >
> > If there is no interest whatsoever in splitting the existing "System
> > Catalogs" into 2 chapters ("System Catalogs" and "System Views") then
> > I will abandon the idea.
> >
> > But if others also feel it might be better to split them, I can put
> > patching this on my TODO list and share it sometime later.
>
> Looking at the docs:
Thanks for looking at this.
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/catalogs.html
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/views-overview.html
>
> it is clear this needs to be fixed, and I would be glad to do it soon.
> I don't need a submitted patch.
Sure. I will step back now and let you fix it.
>
> My only question is whether we apply this to head, head & PG 15, or all
> branches? I think the URLs will change with this adjustment so we might
> want to do only head & PG 15.
AFAIK the chapter has been structured like this for many years and
nobody patched it sooner, so perhaps that is an indication the older
branches don't really need changing?
>
> There are two reasons this didn't get addressed earlier. First, I have
> been focusing on some larger community issues the past few months, and I
> now see people are complaining some of these issues are being ignored
> --- I need to refocus on those smaller issues. Second, the original
> email thread had no email subject, which tends to cause it to get
> ignored and to sometimes be threaded with other unrelated emails that
> also have no subject line.
>
I'm not complaining - the initial dodgy subject was entirely my fault.
I immediately re-posted the email to include a proper subject, but
then the responses came back on the (no subject) thread anyway so that
became the dominant one. Next time I'll try to take more care.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia