Обсуждение: 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(-)

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

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

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

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