| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Roger Harkavy <rogerharkavy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: Add A Glossary |
| Date: | 2020-04-02 03:34:31 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=fW_CUBFFJrBfQB1-jcjDBrFhG7-TDjA+N56z_3kxUh0g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
>
> 2. I found out that "see xyz" and "see also" have bespoke markup in
> Docbook -- <glosssee> and <glossseealso>. I changed some glossentries
> to use those, removing some glossdefs and changing a couple of paras to
> glossseealsos. I also removed all "id" properties from glossentries
> that are just <glosssee>, because I think it's a mistake to have
> references to entries that will make the reader look up a different
> term; for me as a reader that's annoying, and I don't like to annoy
> people.
>
+1 These structural enhancements are great. I'm fine with removing the id
from just-glossee, and glad that we're keeping the entry to aid discovery.
> I rewrote the definition for "atomic" once again. Made it two
> glossdefs, because I can. If you don't like this, I can undo.
>
+1 Splitting this into two definitions, one for each context, is the most
sensible thing and I don't know why I didn't do that in the first place.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2020-04-02 03:44:56 | Re: Add A Glossary |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-02 01:41:11 | Re: Add A Glossary |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-04-02 03:43:05 | Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-04-02 03:21:34 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |