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
