Thread: [PGDOCS] Inconsistent linkends to "monitoring" views.
I noticed one or two "monitoring" links and linkends that are slightly inconsistent from all the others. ~~~ From "Dynamic Statistics Views" pg_stat_activity, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-activity-view" ==> ok pg_stat_replication, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-replication-view" ==> ok pg_stat_wal_receiver, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-wal-receiver-view"> ==> ok pg_stat_recovery_prefetch, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-recovery-prefetch" ==> MODIFY linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-recovery-prefetch-view" pg_stat_subscription, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription" ==> MODIFY linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription-view" pg_stat_ssl, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-ssl-view" ==> ok ~~~ From "Collected Statistics Views" pg_stat_archiver, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-archiver-view" ==> ok pg_stat_bgwriter, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-bgwriter-view" ==> ok pg_stat_database, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-database-view" ==> ok pg_stat_database_conflicts, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-database-conflicts-view" ==> ok pg_stat_io, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-io-view"> ==> ok pg_stat_replication_slots, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-replication-slots-view" ==> ok pg_stat_slru, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-slru-view" ==> ok pg_stat_subscription_stats, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription-stats" ==> MODIFY linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription-stats-view" pg_stat_wal, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-wal-view" ==> ok pg_stat_all_tables, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-all-tables-view" ==> ok pg_stat_all_indexes, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-all-indexes-view" ==> ok pg_stat_user_functions, linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-user-functions-view" ==> ok pg_statio_all_tables, linkend="monitoring-pg-statio-all-tables-view" ==> ok pg_statio_all_indexes, linkend="monitoring-pg-statio-all-indexes-view" ==> ok pg_statio_all_sequences, linkend="monitoring-pg-statio-all-sequences-view" ==> ok ~~~ PSA a patch to make these few changes. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
Attachment
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 01:11:15PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote: > I noticed one or two "monitoring" links and linkends that are slightly > inconsistent from all the others. - <link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription"> + <link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription-view"> Is that really worth bothering for the internal link references? This can create extra backpatching conflicts. -- Michael
Attachment
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 01:11:15PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote: > > I noticed one or two "monitoring" links and linkends that are slightly > > inconsistent from all the others. > > - <link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription"> > + <link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription-view"> > > Is that really worth bothering for the internal link references? I preferred 100% consistency instead of 95% consistency. YMMV. > This can create extra backpatching conflicts. Couldn't the same be said for every patch that fixes a comment typo? This is like a link typo, so what's the difference? ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 4:40 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 6:30 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 01:11:15PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote: > > > I noticed one or two "monitoring" links and linkends that are slightly > > > inconsistent from all the others. > > > > - <link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription"> > > + <link linkend="monitoring-pg-stat-subscription-view"> > > > > Is that really worth bothering for the internal link references? > > I preferred 100% consistency instead of 95% consistency. YMMV. > > > This can create extra backpatching conflicts. > > Couldn't the same be said for every patch that fixes a comment typo? > This is like a link typo, so what's the difference? My 2 cents: Comment typos are visible to readers, so more annoying when seen in isolation, and less likely to have surroundings that could change in back branches. Consistency would preferred all else being equal, but then again nothing is wrong with the existing links. In any case, no one has come out in favor of the patch, so it seems like it should be rejected unless that changes. -- John Naylor
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:02 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote: > My 2 cents: Comment typos are visible to readers, so more annoying > when seen in isolation, and less likely to have surroundings that > could change in back branches. Consistency would preferred all else > being equal, but then again nothing is wrong with the existing links. > In any case, no one has come out in favor of the patch, so it seems > like it should be rejected unless that changes. This is done.