Re: wal_init_zero / wal_recycle
On 2024-Apr-24, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 24.04.24 10:08, Nicolas Seinlet wrote: > > It was not crystal clear to me that when wal_recycle is also ON , the > > recycled files are not filled with zeroes, because they are not > > considered as new. Could we add a sentence stating this? > > It currently says: > > wal_init_zero: "... causes new WAL files to be filled with zeroes ..." > > wal_recycle: "... avoiding the need to create new ones ..." > > I'm not sure where exactly to make that more clear. It may be too subtle. Maybe we could add a note at the end: wal_init_zero (boolean) If set to on (the default), this option causes new WAL files to be filled with zeroes. On some file systems, this ensures that space is allocated before we need to write WAL records. However, Copy-On-Write (COW) file systems may not benefit from this technique, so the option is given to skip the unnecessary work. If set to off, only the final byte is written when the file is created so that it has the expected size. >>Note that recycled WAL files are for these purposes not considered new.<< -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Pero la cosa no es muy grave ..." (le petit Nicolas -- René Goscinny)
Re: nested tags in glossary entries in html docs
On 2024-Apr-12, Erik Wienhold wrote: > There's this bug[1] in the DocBook XSLT stylesheets. Looks like the > fix[2] landed in 1.79.2 (latest version on Arch, Maybe one of these days we should get going with the migration to Docbook 5.x that Jürgen Purtz proposed. https://postgr.es/m/21ed3fd9-9020-4b53-b04f-a08a831b6...@purtz.de In the meantime, if anyone wants to suggest a XSLT patch to carry in our local definition, we could try that. -- Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "The Gord often wonders why people threaten never to come back after they've been told never to return" (www.actsofgord.com)
Re: nested tags in glossary entries in html docs
On 25.04.24 11:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2024-Apr-12, Erik Wienhold wrote: There's this bug[1] in the DocBook XSLT stylesheets. Looks like the fix[2] landed in 1.79.2 (latest version on Arch, Maybe one of these days we should get going with the migration to Docbook 5.x that Jürgen Purtz proposed. https://postgr.es/m/21ed3fd9-9020-4b53-b04f-a08a831b6...@purtz.de In the meantime, if anyone wants to suggest a XSLT patch to carry in our local definition, we could try that. Great recommendation. I may have time in the second half of June to pursue the migration further. There is a performance problem, which possibly results from our XSLT script that optimizes the transformation-speed and works well in 4.x. Jürgen Purtz @Anton: AFAIK the script was developed by your (former?) college Alexander Lakhin.
Re: nested tags in glossary entries in html docs
On 25.04.24 13:24, Jürgen Purtz wrote: On 25.04.24 11:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2024-Apr-12, Erik Wienhold wrote: There's this bug[1] in the DocBook XSLT stylesheets. Looks like the fix[2] landed in 1.79.2 (latest version on Arch, Maybe one of these days we should get going with the migration to Docbook 5.x that Jürgen Purtz proposed. https://postgr.es/m/21ed3fd9-9020-4b53-b04f-a08a831b6...@purtz.de In the meantime, if anyone wants to suggest a XSLT patch to carry in our local definition, we could try that. Great recommendation. I may have time in the second half of June to pursue the migration further. There is a performance problem, which possibly results from our XSLT script that optimizes the transformation-speed and works well in 4.x. Jürgen Purtz @Anton: AFAIK the script was developed by your (former?) college Alexander Lakhin. ... or do we have a problem with the fact that our xml files are not well-formed? Some of them contain more than one root-element: xmllint --noout *.sgml ref/*.sgml 2> >(grep Extra) J. Purtz
Re: nested tags in glossary entries in html docs
On 2024-04-25 15:40 +0200, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > On 25.04.24 13:24, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > > > On 25.04.24 11:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2024-Apr-12, Erik Wienhold wrote: > > > > > > > There's this bug[1] in the DocBook XSLT stylesheets. Looks like the > > > > fix[2] landed in 1.79.2 (latest version on Arch, > > > Maybe one of these days we should get going with the migration to > > > Docbook 5.x that Jürgen Purtz proposed. > > > > > > https://postgr.es/m/21ed3fd9-9020-4b53-b04f-a08a831b6...@purtz.de > > > > > > In the meantime, if anyone wants to suggest a XSLT patch to carry in our > > > local definition, we could try that. > > > > > Great recommendation. I may have time in the second half of June to > > pursue the migration further. There is a performance problem, which > > possibly results from our XSLT script that optimizes the > > transformation-speed and works well in 4.x. > > > ... or do we have a problem with the fact that our xml files are not > well-formed? Some of them contain more than one root-element: > > xmllint --noout *.sgml ref/*.sgml 2> >(grep Extra) No, those files are not processed as standalone documents but are transcluded into postgres-full.xml from which postgres.html is then generated. And postgres-full.xml is well-formed according to xmllint. -- Erik
Re: nested tags in glossary entries in html docs
On 2024-Apr-25, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > Great recommendation. I may have time in the second half of June to > pursue the migration further. There is a performance problem, which > possibly results from our XSLT script that optimizes the > transformation-speed and works well in 4.x. Maybe a way to study this is to time a run with those speedups removed and see if the timing with DocBook 5.2 matches. If it does, that's a sign that forward-porting the speedup tweaks may be worthwhile. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "On the other flipper, one wrong move and we're Fatal Exceptions" (T.U.X.: Term Unit X - http://www.thelinuxreview.com/TUX/)
Re: nested tags in glossary entries in html docs
Hello, 25.04.2024 12:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2024-Apr-12, Erik Wienhold wrote: There's this bug[1] in the DocBook XSLT stylesheets. Looks like the fix[2] landed in 1.79.2 (latest version on Arch, Maybe one of these days we should get going with the migration to Docbook 5.x that Jürgen Purtz proposed. https://postgr.es/m/21ed3fd9-9020-4b53-b04f-a08a831b6...@purtz.de In the meantime, if anyone wants to suggest a XSLT patch to carry in our local definition, we could try that. Please try the attached patch, which adds , borrowed from /usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/ docbook-xsl/xhtml/inline.xsl (I have docbook-xsl 1.79.2 installed), to our local stylesheet-html-common.xsl. I applied the modification from [1] (in two places) and it looks like the nested issue is gone. [1] https://github.com/docbook/xslt10-stylesheets/pull/72/commits/62144252364492aecd71a3c8d5e6e1624af84785 Best regards, Alexanderdiff --git a/doc/src/sgml/stylesheet-html-common.xsl b/doc/src/sgml/stylesheet-html-common.xsl index 9dcf96c02e..641a384812 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/stylesheet-html-common.xsl +++ b/doc/src/sgml/stylesheet-html-common.xsl @@ -674,4 +674,163 @@ set toc,title + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Warning: glossary.collection specified, but there are + + automatic glossaries + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +There's no entry for + + in + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Error: no glossentry for glossterm: + +. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
