Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@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