On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:10:05PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> > I think the idea of having the short descriptions in SQL and longer ones > >> > in SGML is not maintainable. One idea would be to clip the SQL > >> > description to be no longer than a specified number of characters, with > >> > proper word break detection. > >> > >> I prefer overlong entries to machine-truncated ones. Seeing "Does the > >> access > >> method support ordered" for both pg_am.amcanorder and pg_am.amcanorderbyop > >> thanks to the choice of truncation point does not seem like a win. > >> > >> We could store a short version in the SGML markup, solely for this process > >> to > >> extract. In its absence, use the documentation-exposed text. The extractor > >> could emit a warning when it uses a string longer than N characters, > >> serving > >> as a hint to add short-version markup for some column. If that's too hard, > >> though, I'd still prefer overlong entries to nothing or to truncated > >> entries. > > > > I think the simplest solution would be to place SGML comment markers > > around text we want to extract from overly-long SGML descriptions. > > Descriptions without SGML comments would be extracted unchanged. > > Not sure how convenient that is, but it would certainly work. And it > would be a lot better than cutting off at word or character limits or > anything like that.
Well, I figure we have to do something, because people would like those descriptions, and recording them in two places is too much overhead. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
