Re: Add id's to various elements in protocol.sgml

From: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add id's to various elements in protocol.sgml
Date: 2022-03-13 10:26:25
Message-ID: f900c5e1-a18a-84cc-6536-e85ec655c7d7@gmx.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09.03.2022 at 20:43, Brar Piening wrote:
> Attached is a pretty huge patch that adds ids to all sections and all
> the varlistentries where the containing variablelist already had at
> least one id (plus a few additional ones that I stumbled upon and
> deemed useful). It also adds html links next to the respective heading
> in the html documentation and emits a build message and a comment when
> a section or a relevant (see before) varlistentry doesn't have an id.

I have uploaded a doc build with the patch applied to
https://pgdocs.piening.info/ to make it easier for you all to review the
results and see what is there and what isn't and how it feels UI-wise.

You may want to look at https://pgdocs.piening.info/app-psql.html where
the patch adds ids and links to all varlistentries but doesn't do so for
the headings (because they are refsect1 headings not sect1 headings).

https://pgdocs.piening.info/protocol-flow.html is pretty much the
opposite. The patch adds ids and links to the headings (they are sect2
headings) but doesn't add them to the varlistentries (yet - because I
mostly sticked to the algorithm suggested at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/621FAF40.5070507%40anastigmatix.net
to contain the workload).

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2022-03-13 11:35:18 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Previous Message Yura Sokolov 2022-03-13 10:24:51 Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks