31.7.1. Initial Snapshot

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 9:32 AM PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/logical-replication-architecture.html
Description:

There are dublicated section named "31.7.1. Initial Snapshot" on
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/logical-replication-architecture.html

What you are seeing is the first instance of 31.7.1 is a table of contents
entry (hyperlink too) for the section. Then you have the chapter
introductory material. Then you have section 31.7.1 itself.

David J.

On 2023-Oct-11, PG Doc comments form wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/logical-replication-architecture.html
Description:

There are dublicated section named "31.7.1. Initial Snapshot" on
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/logical-replication-architecture.html

Yeah, that looks a bit ugly ... but actually the first line you see with
that text is the table-of-contents for the page. Since there's a single
section in that chapter, the TOC looks like a section title. You can
probably find several pages in the docs where this happens.

Maybe a fix for this would be to style chapter TOCs in some way that
makes it clear that they are TOCs -- for example, add a (subtly) visible
bounding box, or something. Or maybe if a chapter has a single section,
just do not print the TOC at all. I have no idea how to implement such
a fix, or whether it'd be really acceptable after all.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"After a quick R of TFM, all I can say is HOLY CR** THAT IS COOL! PostgreSQL was
amazing when I first started using it at 7.2, and I'm continually astounded by
learning new features and techniques made available by the continuing work of
the development team."
Berend Tober, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg01009.php

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 9:41 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
wrote:

Maybe a fix for this would be to style chapter TOCs in some way that
makes it clear that they are TOCs -- for example, add a (subtly) visible
bounding box, or something. Or maybe if a chapter has a single section,
just do not print the TOC at all. I have no idea how to implement such
a fix, or whether it'd be really acceptable after all.

Or move 4 paragraphs of introductory material into its own section so that
there are two sections and a brief sentence for an intro.

I don't see a special case for a single section to be a productive use of
time. Improved formatting overall for the chapter ToC has merit.

David J.

On 2023-Oct-11, David G. Johnston wrote:

Or move 4 paragraphs of introductory material into its own section so that
there are two sections and a brief sentence for an intro.

We have lots of other places where this (single-entry TOCs) happens. I
don't think we want to add spurious <section> tags in all those places
is going to be a good idea.

I don't see a special case for a single section to be a productive use of
time.

Well, it's the only case where it's not obvious what is going on, but I
agree it's not a great fix -- maybe we have some place where the
introductory material is very long and the first section is several
pagefuls below, and not having a TOC in that case wouldn't be great.

Improved formatting overall for the chapter ToC has merit.

Great ...

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Crear es tan difícil como ser libre" (Elsa Triolet)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

On 2023-Oct-11, David G. Johnston wrote:

Improved formatting overall for the chapter ToC has merit.

Great ...

+1. I've been annoyed by this ambiguity too. I agree that
artificially forcing pages to have at least two subsections
isn't a good fix.

regards, tom lane