Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Alvaro Herrera
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Apr-12, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> 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?

So you are suggesting to use
    <primary><varname>xxx</varname> storage parameter</primary> for
reltoption and
    <primary><varname>xxx</varname> configuration parameter</primary> for GUC?

If we do that, the following two lines are in the index.

    xxx configuration parameter, XXX
    xxx storage parameter, Storage Parameter

OTOH, originally I thought that the following style is smarter.

    xxx
        configuration parameter, XXX
        storage parameter, Storage Parameter

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao