On 07/12/2018 17:41, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
> Description:
>
> At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html, the link to PL/Py
> is broken. Specific
Removing the PL/Py entry sounds right to me.
How about adding plv8 (https://github.com/plv8/plv8) at the same time?
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:16 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On 2018-Dec-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> >
> > > The following documentatio
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:23 AM Reece Hart wrote:
> Removing the PL/Py entry sounds right to me.
>
Yes, removal is appropriate. While I may satisfy a random urge to maintain
it in the future, I'd prefer to not encourage it as a solution.
On 2018-Dec-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
> > Description:
> >
> > At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/extern
On 2018-Dec-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
> Description:
>
> At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html, the link to PL/Py
> is broken. Specifically
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
Description:
At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html, the link to PL/Py
is broken. Specifically, the link shown is
http://python.projects.postgresql.org/b
Jeff Janes writes:
> I don't know what to do about the visual misleadingness of single-entry
> TOCs in general, but at least we can make this specific cross reference
> more specific.
Agreed, done.
regards, tom lane
The section on dynamic SQL recommends "format", but the cross link goes to
the top of page 9.4 not the "format" specific 9.4.1.
This is particularly confusing as 9.4 only has one sub-section, so the TOC
at the top of the page only has one entry. This makes it look more like a
section header itsel
