On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> Curiously though, that gets us down to this: >> 30615 strings out of 245828 >> 397721 string characters out of 1810780 >> which implies that indeed FlowObjectSetup *is* the cause of most of >> the strings being entered. I'm not sure how that squares with the >> observation that there are less than 5000 \pagelabel entries in the >> postgres-US.aux file. Time for more digging. > > Well, after much digging, I've found what seems a workable answer. > It turns out that the original form of FlowObjectSetup is just > unbelievably awful when it comes to handling of hyperlink anchors: > it will put a hyperlink anchor into the PDF for every "flow object", > that is, everything in the document that could possibly have a link > to it, whether or not it actually is linked to. And aside from bloating > the PDF file, it turns out that the hyperlink stuff also consumes some > control sequence names, which is why we're running out of strings. > > There already is logic (probably way older than the hyperlink code) > in jadetex to avoid generating page-number labels for objects that have > no cross-references. So what I did to fix this was to piggyback on > that code: with the attached jadetex.cfg, both a page-number label > and a hyperlink anchor will be generated for all and only those flow > objects that have either a page-number reference or a hyperlink reference. > (We could try to separate those things, but then we'd need two control > sequence names not one per object for tracking purposes, and anyway many > objects will have both kinds of reference if they have either.) > > This gets us down to ~135000 strings to build HEAD, and not incidentally, > the resulting PDF is about half the size it was before. I think I've > also fixed a number of formerly unexplainable broken hyperlinks in the > PDF; some are still broken, but they were that way before. (It looks > like <xref> with endterm doesn't work very well in jadetex; all the > remaining bad links seem to be associated with uses of that.) > > Barring objection I'll commit this tomorrow. I'm inclined to back-patch > it at least into 9.5, maybe further, because I'm afraid we may be closer > than we realized to exceeding the strings limit in the back branches too.
I am in awe. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers