Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:57:32 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm
Message-ID: <20190412035732.GA3754@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190412035229.GF2144@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Apr-12, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:33:45PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Indeed. Attached is the updated version of the patch.
> 
> On top of what Alvaro has mentioned, it seems to me that we should
> make the difference between table-level configuration parameter and
> index-level configuration parameters, and also add <primary> markups
> to create_index.sgml.  If you take the example of fillfactor, it
> applies to both indexes and tables, but with your patch you just
> define "configuration parameter", and point to only CREATE TABLE.

Are you suggesting that it should show "index storage parameters" and
"table storage parameters"?  I'm not sure about that myself ...
particularly considering that certain parameters might apply to some
index AMs and not others.

BTW what about the index-specific options such as, say, BRIN's
pages_per_range?  I know other AMs have their own reloptions ...

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