[postgis-devel] postgis_comments.sql

[Bruce Rindahl]

This:
[image: image.png]
then this:

[image: image.png]
??
vs this:
https://postgis.net/docs/DropGeometryColumn.html

I say it is a no brainer.  Especially since the function above is really
not needed in PostGIS v3.0



On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:34 PM Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
wrote:

> I have long had an animus for the comments.sql file, because it results in
> a couple bad couplings:
>
> extension depends on comments depends on docbook, so you cannot build
> extension without having docbook/xslt tools installed
> extension depends on commetns depends on docbook, so you cannot change
> documentation format
>
> All this maybe would be worth choking down if the SQL comments provided
> any great value, but it’s not at all clear to me that they do. People
> lookup functions on postgis.net, on the google, but not in their SQL
> terminal monitors or object browsers.
>
> If we can find it without ourselves to not have SQL comments anymore, we
> can back out some of these weird dependencies.
>
> Taking the temperature, who would set themselves on fire to save SQL
> comments?
>
> P
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20200302/a72a9ac1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20200302/a72a9ac1/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9263 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20200302/a72a9ac1/attachment-0003.png>