Re: Additional index entries and table sorting

On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
> as per this discussion:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>
> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
> unsorted function tables.

I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On 26 September 2010 18:07, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
>> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
>> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
>> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
>> as per this discussion:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
>> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>>
>> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
>> unsorted function tables.
>
> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.

Is this on the radar? Copying in -hackers in case.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 18:07, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
>>> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
>>> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
>>> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
>>> as per this discussion:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
>>> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>>>
>>> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
>>> unsorted function tables.
>>
>> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.
>
> Is this on the radar?  Copying in -hackers in case.

I took a quick look at it before, but it was too much to commit
without more scrutiny than I had time to give it. Perhaps it would be
useful to decompose this into several patches, and/or add it to the
next CF.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

On 4 October 2010 18:32, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 26 September 2010 18:07, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
>>>> found) into the index so that they can be easily located.  Previously
>>>> there were no entries for most of these at all in the index.  I also
>>>> removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
>>>> as per this discussion:
>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
>>>> These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
>>>>
>>>> While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
>>>> unsorted function tables.
>>>
>>> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.
>>
>> Is this on the radar?  Copying in -hackers in case.
>
> I took a quick look at it before, but it was too much to commit
> without more scrutiny than I had time to give it.  Perhaps it would be
> useful to decompose this into several patches, and/or add it to the
> next CF.

Thanks Robert. I'll probably submit it for the next commitfest then :)

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On sön, 2010-09-26 at 18:07 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> > I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
> > found) into the index so that they can be easily located. Previously
> > there were no entries for most of these at all in the index. I also
> > removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
> > as per this discussion:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
> > These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
> >
> > While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
> > unsorted function tables.
>
> I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped version.

Took a quick look now. What I find weird is that in some hunks you
remove index entries from a table and place them in the surrounding
section, and in other places you insert new index entries inside tables.
I think the proper place for the index entries tends to be inside the
table.

On 28 October 2010 19:59, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> On sön, 2010-09-26 at 18:07 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 26 September 2010 17:49, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I attach a patch which adds all functions (or at least the ones I
> > > found) into the index so that they can be easily located. Previously
> > > there were no entries for most of these at all in the index. I also
> > > removed the entries for count, max, min and sum in the tutorial area
> > > as per this discussion:
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2010-09/msg00119.php .
> > > These are no indexed on the aggregate function page.
> > >
> > > While I was updating the functions section, I also alphabetised any
> > > unsorted function tables.
> >
> > I don't think my email reached the list, so reattaching a gzipped
> version.
>
> Took a quick look now. What I find weird is that in some hunks you
> remove index entries from a table and place them in the surrounding
> section, and in other places you insert new index entries inside tables.
> I think the proper place for the index entries tends to be inside the
> table.
>
>
It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
that they're all in tables. That will mean taking the sections which kept
index terms outside of tables already, and merging them with all the tables.
Will take me a while.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
> that they're all in tables. That will mean taking the sections which kept
> index terms outside of tables already, and merging them with all the tables.
> Will take me a while.

Okay, here's another version, moving index entries back from separate lists
into function tables, although I think I've done that for more than just my
own changes.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On fre, 2010-11-05 at 22:33 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
> > that they're all in tables. That will mean taking the sections which kept
> > index terms outside of tables already, and merging them with all the tables.
> > Will take me a while.
>
>
> Okay, here's another version, moving index entries back from separate lists
> into function tables, although I think I've done that for more than just my
> own changes.

Committed

On 23 November 2010 22:04, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On fre, 2010-11-05 at 22:33 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 28 October 2010 20:15, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It was already inconsistent in the SGML, but if you wish, I'll redo it so
>> > that they're all in tables.  That will mean taking the sections which kept
>> > index terms outside of tables already, and merging them with all the tables.
>> >  Will take me a while.
>>
>>
>> Okay, here's another version, moving index entries back from separate lists
>> into function tables, although I think I've done that for more than just my
>> own changes.
>
> Committed

Thanks Peter! :)

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935