Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
> On 2020/05/20 22:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK by me --- that, too, would be more like the existing catalogs
>> chapter.
> Yeah, so I'd like to propose the attached patch.
Hmmm ... I'm not exactly convinced about sticking xreflabels onto
the <sect2>s as you've done here. Presumably that would make <xref>s
render like "pg_stat_slru" not "Section 27.2.3", which I think is
not consistent with our practice elsewhere. I'd be inclined to
leave the id attributes on the <table>s, and add xreflabels there
if we want them.
I see that catalogs.sgml doesn't really match either of those approaches,
though. Not sure if we want to change it. It looks like people have
tended to use <link> to substitute text for xref's to the catalog
sections, so maybe it would be better to add xreflabels there too
and simplify the references.
Other than that markup quibble, this looks fine to me.
> - 6644 | LWLock | ProcArrayLock
> + 6644 | LWLock | ProcArray
> I found "ProcArrayLock" is still used in monitoring.sgml though
> it was renamed to ProcArray. So the patch also includes the above change.
Ooops, my oversight.
regards, tom lane