Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:44:39 -0300 2011: > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Also, most of the sections are pretty short. Making each of them a > > chapter seems a waste. I think some of them deserve a full chapter > > (dblink, citext?, hstore, intarray, ltree, pgbench, pgcrypto, pgtrgm?, > > pg_upgrade, tablefunc), but most don't. (Some of the others could, > > perhaps, get moved under "Reference"). > > > > Would it work to move only some? > > I think moving some would be even worse than what we have now, unless > you can propose some logic about why they would be split. Remember that this thread is about someone being unable to build a PDF from our docs (and the proposed workaround being "insert more page breaks"), not about how logical the documentation is. In any case, the ones I listed are the ones that have more structure documentation-wise (which also are the ones that have received more attention and thus are of more interest to users), so there is some logic behind it. Am I saying that not all contrib modules are created equal? Yes, I am. So sue me. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
