> On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote
> Layout of .dat files seems generally reasonable, but I don't understand > the proposed make rule: > > +reformat-dat-files: > + $(PERL) -I $(catalogdir) $< catalog/rewrite_dat.pl -o catalog > catalog/pg_*.dat > > This rule has no prerequisite, so what's $< supposed to be? Also, I think > the rule probably ought to be located in src/include/catalog/Makefile, > because that's typically where you'd be cd'd to when messing with the > .dat files, I'd think. (Hm, I see no such makefile, but maybe it's time > for one. A convenience rule located one level up doesn't seem very > convenient.) > Oops, copy-pasto. And I’ll see about a new Makefile. >> It seems like with that, it'd be good to split off the data-format >> section of the README into a new file, maybe README.data, which will >> contain code snippets and some example scenarios. I'll include the >> example pg_proc.prokind merger among those. > > It would be more work, but maybe we should move this into the main > SGML docs. It seems rather silly to have SGML documentation for the > .BKI file format, which now will be an internal matter that hardly > any developers need worry about, but not for the .DAT file format. > But I understand if that seems a bridge too far for today --- certainly > a README file is way better than nothing. Makes sense on all points. I’m not optimistic about creating a new sgml doc on time, but I’ll keep it in mind. -John Naylor
