Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:54:44 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm
Message-ID: <20190412035444.GA3623@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHGQGwFvgZVMVKAZcrp1yw4i=Ds6T8Be2SsfJ=9PE-FhUcGmzg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Apr-12, Fujii Masao wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-Apr-10, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose to mark reloptions as indexterms, like GUC,
> > > so that users can more easily search the pages describing
> > > a reloption in document. Attached is the patch which does this.
> > > Is this helpful? Thought?
> >
> > +1 for adding index entries to all reloptions.  I'm not sure what you're
> > achieving by splitting the text for some existing index entries in two
> > and putting two words in the <secondary> that were part of the
> > <primary>, though.  I'd just put the whole text in <primary> (obviously
> > the option name must be the first word of that).
> 
> Indeed. Attached is the updated version of the patch.

Hmm, actually, I now see you were originally proposing the words
"storage parameter" for the fillfactor index entries, but for v2 you
instead copied the "configuration parameter" words that was in some
other of the older entries.  I think "configuration parameter" is wrong
(we use that for GUCs, and it seems to me that it would be confusing to
mix both things), and we should use the words "storage parameter" for
all of these, don't you think?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services