On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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.
Agreed, this is definitely better than the other options there. And the best suggetsion so far. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
