Hi,
I was wondering if I could propose having jump-links at the top of the Index
page of the PostgreSQL documentation? Like A - B - C - D etc which would
jump to that point in the index.
Also I noticed the keyword PERFORM wasn't listed in the index. It might be
useful to list it, and also to me
I've had a look at the documentation for how much shared memory (in bytes)
Postgres uses:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/kernel-resources.html#SHARED-MEMORY-PARAMETERS
However, after using these calculations to work out the shared memory usage
for my own setup, the numbers I came up with
2009/10/10 Tom Lane
> Thom Brown writes:
> > I've had a look at the documentation for how much shared memory (in
> bytes)
> > Postgres uses:
> >
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/kernel-resources.html#SHARED-MEMORY-PARAMETERS
> > However, after us
2009/10/10 Tom Lane
>
> There is no "default value", we are talking about the actual size of an
> actual memory object. Which you find out with ipcs, not sysctl.
> For instance
>
> $ ipcs -a
>
> -- Shared Memory Segments
> keyshmid owner perms bytes nattc
Hi all,
I'm looking at the latest docs for PostgreSQL 9.0
(http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/streaming-replication.html)
and under the description of primary_conninfo, there's a link to
section 30.1
(http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/libpq-connect.html)
which is suppos
On 12 February 2010 01:57, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I'm looking at the latest docs for PostgreSQL 9.0
>> (http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/streaming-replication.html)
>> and under the description of primar
On 12 February 2010 16:15, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 12 February 2010 01:57, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> I'm looking at the latest docs for PostgreSQL 9.0
>>> (http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/streaming
On 25 February 2010 02:45, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I think the problem I have with there being a link to the libpq
>> control functions page is that the context of the settings isn't the
>>
On 25 February 2010 09:15, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> It looks as if Heikki has already changed the page anyway, which
>>> includes and example of a parameter setting for primary_conninfo a
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/different-replication-solutions.html
s/propogated/propagated/
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/hot-standby.html
s/shapshot/snapshot/
s/statististics/statistics/
Regards
Thom
On 13 May 2010 14:07, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/different-replication-solutions.html
>
> s/propogated/propagated/
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/hot-standby.html
>
> s/shapshot/snapshot/
>
> s/statististics/st
On 13 May 2010 14:14, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 14:07, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/different-replication-solutions.html
>>
>> s/propogated/propagated/
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/
On 13 May 2010 15:16, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 13 May 2010 14:14, Thom Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13 May 2010 14:07, Thom Brown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.postgresql.or
On 13 May 2010 15:32, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 15:16, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > On 13 May 2010 14:14, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 13 May 2010 14:07, Thom Brown wrote:
>&g
I've tried following the instructions on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/files/documentation/books/aw_pgsql/node267.html
This mentions a -f option but my version of pg_upgrade doesn't appear
to support this:
/usr/lib64/postgresql-9.0/bin/pg_upgrade: invalid option -- 'f'
The only options av
On 11 June 2010 14:55, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I've tried following the instructions on this page:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/files/documentation/books/aw_pgsql/node267.html
>>
>> This mentions a -f option but
On 12 June 2010 18:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> The only options available are:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Are those instructions for an older version?
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's Bruce&#x
On 12 June 2010 18:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> > I am sure that will change soon. ?:-) ?The right URL is now #7 on
>> > Google:
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ?http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/pgupgrade.html
>> >
>> >>
2010/6/22 Satoshi Nagayasu :
> Hi all,
>
> I've found a bit strange thing on the INTEGER range in the official manual.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/datatype-numeric.html
>
> According to the official manual, the INTEGER range is "-2147483648 to
> +2147483647".
> However, my e
On 22 June 2010 09:44, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Satoshi Nagayasu
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've found a bit strange thing on the INTEGER range in the official manual.
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/datatype-numeric.html
>>
>> According to th
On 22 June 2010 09:59, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> Magnus,
>
> Thanks for your advice. I've understood how it happens.
>
> However, it looks tricky and difficult to understand,
> so I hope that the message could be more understandable
> as Thom mentioned.
>
> Regards,
>
This does appear to be a got
On 22 June 2010 10:46, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 09:59, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>> Magnus,
>>
>> Thanks for your advice. I've understood how it happens.
>>
>> However, it looks tricky and difficult to understand,
>> so I hope that the mes
On 23 June 2010 00:07, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:36:30AM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> 2010/6/22 Satoshi Nagayasu :
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I've found a bit strange thing on the INTEGER range in the official manual.
>> >
&
On 23 June 2010 02:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> Is that the right behaviour though? Shouldn't the signed value reach
>> the cast step rather than the absolute value? Or maybe Postgres could
>> implicitly accept -12345::integer to be (-12345)::intege
On 3 July 2010 03:41, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On fre, 2010-07-02 at 22:15 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > 500k of source for just half a dozen simple images? There's
>> > something
>> > > seriously wrong there. I suspect the PNGs could be compressed a lot
>> > > more
On 3 July 2010 13:59, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 3 July 2010 03:41, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On fre, 2010-07-02 at 22:15 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> > > 500k of source for just half a dozen simple images? There's
>>>
On 4 July 2010 04:49, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On l?r, 2010-07-03 at 19:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I hesitate to suggest xfig, but at least it's got a well-specified
>> > file format ...
>>
>> Looks a little old. It doesn't appear to support SVG output, for
>> example
On 8 July 2010 11:46, Andre Majorel wrote:
> The doc says « if you are at all concerned about password
> "sniffing" attacks then md5 is preferred. » but does not say why.
> It would seem that an MD5 hash can be sniffed and replayed just as
> well as a clear-text password.
>
> Maybe the doc needs t
On 8 July 2010 14:05, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 8 July 2010 11:46, Andre Majorel wrote:
>> The doc says « if you are at all concerned about password
>> "sniffing" attacks then md5 is preferred. » but does not say why.
>> It would seem that an MD5 hash can be sniffed
Hi all,
It's probably me not understanding what is being claimed, but on
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/features.html it says
PostgreSQL core covers ISO/IEC 9075-9 Management of External Data
(SQL/MED). I'm aware the actual SQL/MED functionality isn't
implemented yet. Is this purely t
On 16 July 2010 13:39, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 16/07/2010 14:25, Thom Brown a écrit :
>> [...]
>> It's probably me not understanding what is being claimed, but on
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/features.html it says
>> PostgreSQL core cov
On 17 July 2010 05:33, Steve Atkins wrote:
> Has everyone seen the "railroad diagrams" sqlite use in their docs?
> http://www.sqlite.org/lang_createindex.html , as one example.
>
> Would it be nice to have the same sort of format in the postgresql docs?
> (Yeah, I'm volunteering, if people think
On 17 July 2010 21:23, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> While they're quite attractive, I actually see them being more
>> confusing than helpful personally, but I could be wrong. I reckon
>> there might be clearer ways of repr
On 17 July 2010 21:30, Joseph Conway wrote:
> On 7/17/10 1:26 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 17 July 2010 21:23, Dave Page wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>> While they're quite attractive, I actually see them being more
>>&g
On 18 July 2010 09:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On sön, 2010-07-18 at 00:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, if we want _any_ images for the 9.0 docs, we had better decide
>> soon.
>
> I'd be very much against putting any images into 9.0 at this time. I
> was working under the assumption tha
On 19 July 2010 15:59, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:30:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Steve Atkins writes:
>> > Has everyone seen the "railroad diagrams" sqlite use in their docs?
>> > http://www.sqlite.org/lang_createindex.html , as one example.
>>
>> They look great for si
Hi all,
I wanted to clean up the boolean data type documentation page a bit,
so thought the following was needed:
- use a data type table like most of the other main data types so
it's more uniform (the the size of a boolean is only mentioned at the
very end and looks a bit odd, so removed that
e index which page you'll end up at. Can we rename one of
those pages to clarify as it looks weird in the index.
Thanks
Thom
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
an example without comments in.
I think the sentence is in the wrong place, so have moved it to a less
confusing location in the attached patch.
Thanks
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/syntax.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/syntax.sgml
index 595314b..9f91939 100644
--- a/do
LTER TABLE.)"
So pg_dump actually performs an ALTER TABLE sometimes? :S
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 15 August 2010 10:01, Thom Brown wrote:
> Is this right? I'm looking at
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/backup-dump.html
>
> It says, "pg_dump does not block other operations on the database
> while it is working. (Exceptions are those operations that
On 15 August 2010 10:29, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 15 August 2010 10:01, Thom Brown wrote:
>> Is this right? I'm looking at
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/backup-dump.html
>>
>> It says, "pg_dump does not block other operations on the databas
On 15 August 2010 10:38, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 15 August 2010 10:29, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 15 August 2010 10:01, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> Is this right? I'm looking at
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/backup-dump.html
>>>
>>>
On 15 August 2010 10:45, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 08/15/2010 11:01 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> Is this right? I'm looking at
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/backup-dump.html
>>
>> It says, "pg_dump does not block other operat
On 15 August 2010 10:47, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 15 August 2010 10:38, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 15 August 2010 10:29, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> On 15 August 2010 10:01, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>> Is this right? I'm looking at
>>>> http://www.post
On 15 August 2010 15:38, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 15 August 2010 10:38, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Another thing I noticed, going back to
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/backup-file.html
On 16 August 2010 00:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> I did something about Thom's various gripes. See what you think ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
That's great Tom. Thanks. :) The note about restoring to a different
architecture hadn't crossed my mind.
On 12 August 2010 00:05, Thom Brown wrote:
> I noticed that there are 2 linked entries for "Privileges":
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/bookindex.html#AEN128982
>
> While they both go to different pages (with admittedly very similar
> content), thos
x27;t think a brief mention on the page specifically
concerning primary keys could hurt.
So here's a patch to add it. Worth adding?
Thanks
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935
primary_key_index.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@post
On 18 August 2010 17:09, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> In response to a user asking a question about indexes on primary
>> keys
>>
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-08/msg00194.php)
>> I attach a patch to add informati
On 18 August 2010 17:19, Thom Brown wrote:
> Please look at the attached images. These are taken from the 8.4.4 A4
> PDF document. As you can see some examples in the PDF version of the
> documentation are illegible, with text overflowing onto other text,
> and off the page.
>
&g
On 18 August 2010 21:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-08-18 at 16:52 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> In response to a user asking a question about indexes on primary keys
>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-08/msg00194.php)
>> I attach a patch to a
On 18 August 2010 17:24, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 17:19, Thom Brown wrote:
>> Please look at the attached images. These are taken from the 8.4.4 A4
>> PDF document. As you can see some examples in the PDF version of the
>> documentation are illegible, with
On 19 August 2010 15:26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié ago 18 12:24:12 -0400 2010:
>> On 18 August 2010 17:19, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > Please look at the attached images. These are taken from the 8.4.4 A4
>> > PDF document. As
an undefined order,
unless sorting is explicitly requested.
This applies to: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ddl-basics.html
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
On 20 August 2010 14:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> should be:
>> When a table is read, the rows will appear in an undefined order,
>> unless sorting is explicitly requested.
>
> Perhaps "unspecified" is le mot juste.
>
Yes, that sounds mor
nd
all the examples and paragraphs merge into a tangled mess.
Could someone update the main docs so it outputs a similar style to
the dev docs? This will probably require changes to the actual docs
to separate examples from other sections which share the same markup.
Thanks
--
Thom Brown
Regist
On 23 August 2010 15:37, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thom Brown writes:
>>> On 23 August 2010 14:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Hm, both pages render acceptably for me in Safari --- it's true that the
>>>>
On 25 August 2010 20:15, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 18 August 2010 21:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On ons, 2010-08-18 at 16:52 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>>>> I attach a patch to add information to the Primary Keys section
>>
On 24 August 2010 15:44, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 24 August 2010 09:35, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 23 August 2010 16:09, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> On 23 August 2010 15:37, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Th
On 26 August 2010 06:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 26/08/2010 01:29, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 17:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> And another prototype:
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photo
On 26 August 2010 13:11, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:03, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 26 August 2010 06:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>>> Le 26/08/2010 01:29, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
>>>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 17:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner
On 26 August 2010 18:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 08:03 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, quite impressive. Would love to know how Thom did that. And if I
>> > can borrow it for the french translation of the manual :)
>>
>> Thanks,
On 26 August 2010 18:00, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:28 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks like the webkit rendering engine can't deal with rounded corners
>> neatly where the borders are different widths so got rid of the
>> left
On 26 August 2010 18:23, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> It is great for it to be aesthetically pleasing but if we have
>>> those minor inconsistencies I think it would be distracting from
>>> the information
On 26 August 2010 18:50, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> It looks like discussion died here. Do you want to propose a new
>>> patch? (I'd be happy to give it a shot if you'd rather.)
>>
>> Sure, go
On 26 August 2010 20:16, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Looks good. Do we usually got into fine details such as the name
>> of the index? They'll see the index name returned when they
>> create the table or add the constraint anyway, and if they m
On 26 August 2010 18:44, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 18:27 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> I agree with this too and I'll work on making sure things look more
>> consistent. I'll just have to think about how to make the differences
>> clear wi
On 27 August 2010 16:46, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Okay, got rid of all the shadows, rounded corners etc and made
>> some other changes:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4932396780/sizes/o/
>
> I generally liked the rounded corners. T
On 27 August 2010 17:10, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> The reason I removed the corners is that they can't be applied to
>> a warning or caution box using their current markup (as the
>> background pushes beyond the rounded corner), and when they ap
tags.
E.g.:
variance(expression)
vs
stddev_samp(expression)
Which way is correct?
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.post
On 27 August 2010 19:56, Thom Brown wrote:
> Copied from another thread...
>
> Something I've noticed is an inconsistency in the SGML markup around
> functions listed in tables. Sometimes the entire function signature
> is considered to be the function, and other times it&#
On 28 August 2010 15:29, Thom Brown wrote:
> I attach a patch which fixes a few layout and markup issues, and also
> a bit of tidying up. These include
> - removing excessive table cells
> - moving function parameters into function tags rather than having
> them being cons
On 28 August 2010 19:47, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 28 August 2010 15:29, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I attach a patch which fixes a few layout and markup issues, and also
>> a bit of tidying up. These include
>> - removing excessive table cells
>> - moving function parameter
On 28 August 2010 19:50, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 28 August 2010 19:47, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 28 August 2010 15:29, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> I attach a patch which fixes a few layout and markup issues, and also
>>> a bit of tidying up. These include
>>&
sion, but saves as PNG, which I then reduce the
palette on to shrink the file size, so the colours are a bit off and
the text looks a bit fuzzy.
Are the boxes really that distracting? How about if I remove the
border and just have a light background? The problem with relying on
font difference is
On 28 August 2010 20:53, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 20:23, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4931878975/sizes/o/
>>
>> FWIW, I like the changes to the tables, but I do dislike both boxes *and*
>> background-color
ldn't this also be in the
synopsis?
So it would read something like:
CREATE TRIGGER name { BEFORE | AFTER } { event [ OF column_name [, ...
] ] [ OR ... ] }
ON table [ FOR [ EACH ] { ROW | STATEMENT } ]
[ WHEN ( condition ) ]
EXECUTE PROCEDURE function_name ( arguments )
--
On 29 August 2010 15:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> I notice that the 9.0 docs page for CREATE TRIGGER doesn't indicate
>> column-level syntax in the synopsis:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-createtrigger.html
>
> My recolle
On 29 August 2010 08:39, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> > Are the boxes really that distracting? How about if I remove the
>> > border and just have a light background? The problem with relying on
>> > font dif
p)
> void *, void *
>
>
>
But that page also says "Using FuncSynopsis for languages that are
unrelated to C may prove difficult."
Using that syntax will result in a semi-colon being placed at the end
of the function when parsed.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 29 August 2010 17:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4937010683/sizes/o/
>
>> For me, that's the easiest to read so far. With a lot of the other
>> distractions cle
On 29 August 2010 17:46, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> The only change is the addition of very light shadowing (for Dave
>> and Kevin)
>
> Sorry for sounding picky, but can the shadowing be even lighter? It
> seems a tad heavy next to the light gra
On 29 August 2010 20:02, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> The rounded corners and shadows aren't showing up in Konqueror
>
>> Okay, it appears there's also a KHTML engine setting for pre-CSS3
>> support.
On 29 August 2010 19:39, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> And Kevin, I made the shadows a bit lighter in this version and
>> used the beige notes box.
>
> For my taste, that's perfect. (Now there's the trivial matter of
> making everyone else
On 29 August 2010 20:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-08-27 at 21:57 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I've also noticed that a lot of the contents are indented as
>> part of the markup, but when output in HTML, each space it recreated
>> as it ends up in either
On 29 August 2010 20:24, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 20:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On fre, 2010-08-27 at 21:57 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> I've also noticed that a lot of the contents are indented as
>>> part of the markup, but when output in HTML
On 29 August 2010 21:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 28 August 2010 19:50, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> On 28 August 2010 19:47, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 28 August 2010 15:29, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>> I attach a patch which fixes a few layout and m
On 29 August 2010 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 29 August 2010 21:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Ummm ... this seems to be almost entirely pointless whitespace changes.
>>> Sure you attached the right diff?
>
>> Yes, the whitespace changes yo
On 29 August 2010 22:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 29 August 2010 22:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What your changes seem to
>>> accomplish is to take the and constructs
>>> outside any , but what is the point of that?
>
>> Well, those c
gt;> different?
>
> You know you can try these things in http://browsershots.org, right?
Yes, but they're very slow and very unreliable unfortunately. :(
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing l
On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> Well that was a pain. Didn't realise there was a special hacky CSS
>> file to fix fonts for gecko and webkit browsers. We use javascript to
>> add it in on the current documentation, which is a na
On 29 August 2010 20:27, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Okay, I've made a couple other changes, but if it's not working
>> now, I don't think it's supported. This page suggests that
>> box-shadow isn't yet supported by KHTML:
>
On 31 August 2010 17:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Thom Brown writes:
>>>> Now the font sizes should be virtually the same in all browsers.
>>>
>>> That seems pretty unfriendly from an ac
But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
for elements which are monospaced by default.
There's pros and cons to both approaches. I'm not sure which one you
guys prefer.
--
Thom Bro
On 31 August 2010 18:37, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> In a way I am. Users have the ability (although not often exercised)
>> to change the default font and size. I gave the HTML tag a font-size,
>> so that anything under it would be based on that. We use r
On 31 August 2010 18:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
>> >> base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
>> >> for elements which are monospa
On 31 August 2010 21:16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>> > On 31 August 2010 18:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > Thom Brown wrote:
>> > >> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't set
On 31 August 2010 21:59, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>>> I found some sample code the is supposed to work in all browers.
>>> I tested it in Firefox and it worked. It should work in Opera
>>> and IE as well. HTML
On 1 September 2010 09:36, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 31 August 2010 21:59, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>> I found some sample code the is supposed to work in all browers.
>>>> I tested it in Firefox and
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
