On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 2:17 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 09:29:13AM +1000, Peter Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:59 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:50 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > > > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > > > > Initially, that chapter did not document any system views. > > > > > > > > Maybe we could make the system views a separate chapter? > > > > > > +1 > > > > There has not been any activity on this thread for a while, so I am > > just wondering what I should do next about it: > > > > Are there any other opinions about this? > > > > If there is no interest whatsoever in splitting the existing "System > > Catalogs" into 2 chapters ("System Catalogs" and "System Views") then > > I will abandon the idea. > > > > But if others also feel it might be better to split them, I can put > > patching this on my TODO list and share it sometime later. > > Looking at the docs:
Thanks for looking at this. > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/catalogs.html > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/views-overview.html > > it is clear this needs to be fixed, and I would be glad to do it soon. > I don't need a submitted patch. Sure. I will step back now and let you fix it. > > My only question is whether we apply this to head, head & PG 15, or all > branches? I think the URLs will change with this adjustment so we might > want to do only head & PG 15. AFAIK the chapter has been structured like this for many years and nobody patched it sooner, so perhaps that is an indication the older branches don't really need changing? > > There are two reasons this didn't get addressed earlier. First, I have > been focusing on some larger community issues the past few months, and I > now see people are complaining some of these issues are being ignored > --- I need to refocus on those smaller issues. Second, the original > email thread had no email subject, which tends to cause it to get > ignored and to sometimes be threaded with other unrelated emails that > also have no subject line. > I'm not complaining - the initial dodgy subject was entirely my fault. I immediately re-posted the email to include a proper subject, but then the responses came back on the (no subject) thread anyway so that became the dominant one. Next time I'll try to take more care. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia