Re: index items for pg_stat_progress_xxx views
On 2020/12/01 14:14, shinya11.k...@nttdata.com wrote: Hi, The index items for pg_stat_progress_xxx views point to the "Viewing Statistics" section, but not to the dedicated section (e.g., "ANALYZE Progress Reporting") for each view. IMO this is very inconvenient when finding the section describing each pg_stat_progress_xxx view, from the index. So what about adding new pointer to the section for each view in the index? Patch attached. BTW, other stats views have both pointers in the index. When setting an , it's better to set the zone attribute to indicate which section it's associated with. For example, pg_stat_progress_analyze Thanks for the review! I was thinking that the zone attribute doesn't need to be specified because the indexterm is defined under the section that the indexterm tries to point to. You can see the same situation at, for example, the section and indexterm of pg_stat_database. If I'm missing something, could you tell me why the zone attribute is necessary in this case? I looked at lines 132-137 of monitoring.sgml, and I saw that zone is set for indexterm after . However, I haven't found the zone set for indexterm after , so you may be right. So you agree not to add zone attribute in this case? Yes, I think it's nice. So I pushed the patch. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
Re: Consistent reference to RFCs in the documentation
On 05/11/2020 17:09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: When referencing RFC's, we have a mix of ulinking to the ietf.org entry and not. Also, for subsequent mentions of the same RFC on the same page we have some as while others are not. I'm not sure how sensible the tag is for these. I mean, yeah, it's an acronym, but it wouldn't make sense to write it open. It doesn't seem to affect the formatting in the HTML docs, at least I don't see any difference in my browser. But let's be consistent. The attached patch adds ulinks for all RFC's and marks subsequent mentions as acronym to make the docs consistent. It also spells all as "RFC " with a whitespace as that was the most commonly used spelling (there is no RFC for how to reference to an RFC so we're free to choose). There is RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide", Section 3.5 Citations (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-3.5). That's for the style used in RFCs themselves. It recommends "RFC " as well. In order to make review easier I haven't fixed linelengths/wrapping, but am happy to do that in case this is deemed something we want. I line-wrapped some of them manually. We're not terribly consistent with the wrapping in the docs. Pushed, thanks! - Heikki
Re: Consistent reference to RFCs in the documentation
> On 1 Dec 2020, at 13:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 05/11/2020 17:09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> The attached patch adds ulinks for all >> RFC's and marks subsequent mentions as acronym to make the docs consistent. >> It >> also spells all as "RFC " with a whitespace as that was the most >> commonly used spelling (there is no RFC for how to reference to an RFC so >> we're >> free to choose). > > There is RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide", Section 3.5 Citations > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-3.5). That's for the style used > in RFCs themselves. It recommends "RFC " as well. Interesting, I've looked for that more than once but failed to find that section. Thanks for pointing it out. > Pushed, thanks! Thanks! cheers ./daenil
