On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:11:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Before I dive into this, is there some reason why the > >> pg_catalog.* tables/views should not have comments that match the > >> descriptions in the docs? I can see where this could cause some > >> maintenance issues, > > > Yeah. If you can figure a way to auto-generate the comments from > > the sgml files, it'd be nice, but I definitely don't want to > > manually maintain Yet Another set of per-column information. > > Dept of second thoughts: actually, perhaps see if you can generate > the pg_description entries from the C comments in the > include/catalog header files. There's already a strong motivation > to hold those to shorter-than-a-line length, whereas the column > descriptions in catalogs.sgml tend to run on a little longer, and > wouldn't format nicely in \dt+.
My thought is that by the time somebody is doing \dt+ (or equivalent in other tools than psql) on a pg_catalog table or view, they need to see details and are at most slightly concerned about the formatting. Speaking of formatting, isn't there also a formatting TODO attached to that? IOW, shouldn't these be de-coupled? Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
