Prev: [HACKERS] pg_trgm
Next: functional call named notation clashes with SQLfeature
From: Joshua Tolley on 26 May 2010 23:24
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Jonathan Leto <jaleto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > This tiny doc patch adds _PG_init to the skeleton example code for a
> > PL. The information is quite valuable to PL authors, who might miss it
> > when it is described in the shared library documentation.
>
> I'm not sure it does much good to add it to the template without any
> explanation of what it does. What might make more sense is to add a
> cross-reference to the section on dynamic loading, where this is
> documented.

+1. How about the attached (which, incidentally, tested successfully on my
box, because I've managed to achieve doc building nirvana through blindly
flailing about until it worked...)?

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
From: Joshua Tolley on 9 Jun 2010 23:10
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:18:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Jonathan Leto <jaleto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This tiny doc patch adds _PG_init to the skeleton example code for a
> >> > PL. The information is quite valuable to PL authors, who might miss it
> >> > when it is described in the shared library documentation.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure it does much good to add it to the template without any
> >> explanation of what it does.  What might make more sense is to add a
> >> cross-reference to the section on dynamic loading, where this is
> >> documented.
> >
> > +1. How about the attached (which, incidentally, tested successfully on my
> > box, because I've managed to achieve doc building nirvana through blindly
> > flailing about until it worked...)?
>
> I've committed a doc change along these lines, but I thought your
> version was a little wordy and maybe not in the best spot, so I did it
> a bit differently. Hopefully it's good - if not, I can always change
> it again...

You're far from the first to label one of my productions "wordy" :) Your
version suits me fine (btw, in case anyone else is looking for it, it's here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-06/msg00060.php)

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] pg_trgm
Next: functional call named notation clashes with SQLfeature