Re: documentation structure

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 7:40 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> I'm highly against this.  If I want to read about PL/Python, why should
> I have to wade through PL/Perl and PL/Tcl?
>
> I think, abstractly, in a book, PL/Python should be a chapter of its
> own.  Just like GiST should be a chapter of its own.  Because they are
> self-contained topics.

On the other hand, in a book, chapters tend to be of relatively
uniform length. People don't usually write a book with some chapters
that are 100+ pages long, and others that are a single page, or even
just a couple of sentences. I mean, I'm sure it's been done, but it's
not a normal way to write a book.

And I don't believe that if someone were writing a physical book about
PostgreSQL from scratch, they'd ever end up with a top-level chapter
that looks anything like our GiST chapter. All of the index AM
chapters are quite obviously clones of each other, and they're all
quite short. Surely you'd make them sections within a chapter, not
entire chapters.

I do agree that PL/pgsql is more arguable. I can imagine somebody
writing a book about PostgreSQL and choosing to make that topic into a
whole chapter.

However, I also think that people don't make decisions about what
should be a chapter in a vacuum. If you've got 100 people writing a
book together, which is essentially what we actually do have, and each
of those people makes decisions in isolation about what is worthy of
being a chapter, then you end up with exactly the kind of mess that we
now have. Some chapters are long and some are short. Some are
well-written and some are poorly written. Some are updated regularly
and others have hardly been touched in a decade. Books have editors to
straighten out those kinds of inconsistencies so that there's some
uniformity to the product as a whole.

The problem with that, of course, is that it invites bike-shedding. As
you say, every decision that is reflected in our documentation was
made for some reason, and most of them will have been made by
prominent, active committers. So discussions about how to improve
things can easily bog down even when people agree on the overall
goals, simply because few individual changes find consensus. I hope
that doesn't happen here, because I think most people who have
commented so far agree that there is a problem here and that we should
try to fix it. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com