> On Dec 23, 2025, at 16:41, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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...
>
The patch itself looks good to me. Following Shixin’s comment, I do see the inconsistencies of full path and relative
pathof .h files are referenced, if you don’t plan to address the inconvenience, I may file a patch for that.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
