On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Right now, you might well care about whether a feature arrived in 9.3 vs
> 9.4, for instance; but it's highly unlikely that you care whether a
> feature arrived in 7.1 or 7.2. The problem with this proposal is that
> it will add far more bloat of
On 2015-08-31 10:48:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem with this proposal is that it will add far more bloat of
> the latter sort than currently-useful information; and the ratio will
> get worse over time.
If we add that information in sane way we should be able to remove it
automatically af
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr <
oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> It'll be a real
>> mess if we do that for everything.
>>
>
> I share the fear that it could become messy, but it doesn't necessary
> *have to* be
"Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> TBH, I think this is a horrid idea. We occasionally manually add remarks
>> like "since version x.y, Postgres does this". Inevitably, that just bulks
>> up the documentation; and it starts to look seriously silly
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes:
> > I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on since
> > when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was introduced.
> > It would be nice if we could make a script that would pars
"Shulgin, Oleksandr" writes:
> I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on since
> when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was introduced.
> It would be nice if we could make a script that would parse the sgml files
> and for every symbol it finds it would a
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-08-31 13:06:04 +0200, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> > I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on since
> > when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was introduced.
>
> Same here. Not sure
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova <
a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> 31.08.2015 14:06, Shulgin, Oleksandr пишет:
>
> Hello,
>
> I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on since
> when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was introdu
Hi,
On 2015-08-31 13:06:04 +0200, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on since
> when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was introduced.
Same here. Not sure how to display it without getting disturbing the
'flow' of the docs
31.08.2015 14:06, Shulgin, Oleksandr пишет:
Hello,
I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on
since when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was
introduced.
Clicking through the "this page in other versions" links at the top of
a webpage does help, bu
Hello,
I often find it pity that our docs are missing any information on since
when a certain GUC setting, SQL-level command or function was introduced.
Clicking through the "this page in other versions" links at the top of a
webpage does help, but you still need to do some guessing (binary searc
11 matches
Mail list logo