Обсуждение: Re: Additional index entries and table sorting

On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
> as per this discussion:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>
> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
> unsorted function tables.

I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On 26 September 2010 18:07, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
>> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
>> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
>> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
>> as per this discussion:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
>> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>>
>> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
>> unsorted function tables.
>
> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.

Is this on the radar?  Copying in -hackers in case.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 18:07, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
>>> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
>>> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
>>> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
>>> as per this discussion:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
>>> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>>>
>>> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
>>> unsorted function tables.
>>
>> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.
>
> Is this on the radar?  Copying in -hackers in case.

I took a quick look at it before, but it was too much to commit
without more scrutiny than I had time to give it.  Perhaps it would be
useful to decompose this into several patches, and/or add it to the
next CF.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

On 4 October 2010 18:32, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2010 18:07, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>>> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
>>>> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
>>>> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
>>>> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
>>>> as per this discussion:
>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
>>>> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>>>>
>>>> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
>>>> unsorted function tables.
>>>
>>> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.
>>
>> Is this on the radar?  Copying in -hackers in case.
>
> I took a quick look at it before, but it was too much to commit
> without more scrutiny than I had time to give it.  Perhaps it would be
> useful to decompose this into several patches, and/or add it to the
> next CF.

Thanks Robert.  I'll probably submit it for the next commitfest then :)

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On sön, 2010-09-26 at 18:07 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> > I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
> > found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
> > there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
> > removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
> > as per this discussion:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
> > These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
> >
> > While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
> > unsorted function tables.
>
> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.

Took a quick look now.  What I find weird is that in some hunks you
remove index entries from a table and place them in the surrounding
section, and in other places you insert new index entries inside tables.
I think the proper place for the index entries tends to be inside the
table.

On fre, 2010-11-05 at 22:33 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> >
> > It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
> > that they're all in tables.  That will mean taking the sections which kept
> > index terms outside of tables already, and merging them with all the tables.
> >  Will take me a while.
>
>
> Okay, here's another version, moving index entries back from separate lists
> into function tables, although I think I've done that for more than just my
> own changes.

Committed

On 23 November 2010 22:04, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On fre, 2010-11-05 at 22:33 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
>> > that they're all in tables.  That will mean taking the sections which kept
>> > index terms outside of tables already, and merging them with all the tables.
>> >  Will take me a while.
>>
>>
>> Okay, here's another version, moving index entries back from separate lists
>> into function tables, although I think I've done that for more than just my
>> own changes.
>
> Committed

Thanks Peter! :)

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935