On 2020/05/21 4:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, since I think that using <xref> is simpler than <link>, I added xlabel
in <sect2>. But if we don't do that for the consistency with catalog.sgml,
I think that there are two approaches.
(1) Replace <xref> with <link> when referencing to the monitoring views
docs. For example, add <sect2 id="monitoring-pg-stat-relication-view">
and replace <xref linkend="pg-stat-replication-view"/> with
<link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-replication-view">.
(2) Leave <xref> as it is. In this case, for example,
<xref linkend="pg-stat-replication-view"/> references to the table
of pg_stat_replication instead of the section.
I prefer (1) because it's better to reference to the section rather than
the table. There are thirty <xref> for monitoring views in the docs and
they need to be updated.
>
> Other than that markup quibble, this looks fine to me.
Thanks for the review!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION