Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:19:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I really don't see why we're resisting Josh's idea of putting a more
>> complex set of migration instructions in the documentation someplace.
>> Seems useful to me. Sure, we'd have to "carry" it forever, but we
>> could make a policy of removing migration instructions for releases
>> that are now EOL.

> Well, the item has a limited useful lifespan, and we could adjust the
> wiki page between minor releases if we found problems/improvements. I
> suppose if we create a "Migration" section in the documentation it would
> be harmless enough, but it is unclear what would be in there and what
> would be in the release notes. What would be the title of the
> subsection for this? "Migrating recovery.conf to Postgres 10?" Maybe
> make it a subsection of the release notes in the docs?

I've been thinking for awhile that we need to start retiring
ancient-branch release notes from the active documentation. I got
pushback on that when I proposed it to the list (too lazy to look up
the thread right now). But it would certainly be an easier sell
to make the release notes more voluminous if we started cutting off
the long tail of ancient notes.

I'm still not seeing any value in putting this sort of info into
a documentation section that's distinct from the release notes.
We've used links to wiki pages in the past when the information
seemed to be in flux, and that's reasonable. But what's the point
of just linking to somewhere else in the same document?

regards, tom lane