Re: Fix wrong reference in pg_overexplain's doc
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Shixin Wang <wang-shi-xin@outlook.com>
Cc: Julien Tachoires <julien@tachoires.me>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-12-23T08:41:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
doc: Use proper tags in pg_overexplain documentation.
- 02a0f385fa98 18.2 landed
- 008beba005c9 19 (unreleased) landed
-
doc: Fix incorrect reference in pg_overexplain documentation.
- 283e25a37187 18.2 landed
- c5d162435ab7 19 (unreleased) landed
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 10:25 AM Shixin Wang <wang-shi-xin@outlook.com> wrote: > > Hi Fujii-san > > > It would be more appropriate to use > > <filename>, <structname>, and <command> instead. > > ``` > - following fields. See <literal>PlannedStmt</literal> in > - <literal>nodes/plannodes.h</literal> for additional detail. > + following fields. See <structname>PlannedStmt</structname> in > + <filename>nodes/plannodes.h</filename> for additional detail. > ``` > > Switching to <filename> here makes sense. While looking through the SGML files, Thanks for the review! > I noticed that the way header file paths are written is a bit inconsistent across the documentation. > > In many places we use full paths including src/include, for example in fdw_handler.sgml and create_type.sgml: > > ``` > in <filename>src/include/nodes/plannodes.h</filename>, and the comments for > <type>ExecRowMark</type> in <filename>src/include/nodes/execnodes.h</filename> for > ``` > > But in a few files, such as pgoverexplain.sgml (this patch), spi.sgml, > and xfunc.sgml, the paths are written without the src/include/ prefix. Yes, and you can see similar inconsistencies elsewhere as well. For example, paths to C source files are written inconsistently: they usually start with src/backend or contrib, but some entries don't follow that convention. > I’m fine with the change as-is; just wanted to ask whether you’d like to use > this patch to address that inconsistency, or keep the existing style in this file. At the moment, I don't plan to update the patch to address those inconsistencies... Regards, -- Fujii Masao