Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf
Date: 2020-12-16 22:29:16
Message-ID: 20201216222916.GF4527@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 02:00:23PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> > Yes, that is pretty much the same thing I was suggesting, except that
> > each rename has its own _original_ URL link, which I think is also
> > acceptable. My desire is for these items to all exist in one place, and
> > an appendix of them seems fine.
>
> Alright, so, to try and move this forward I'll list out (again) the
> renames that we have in pgweb:
>
> catalog-pg-replication-slots.html <-> view-pg-replication-slots.html
> pgxlogdump.html <-> pgwaldump.html
> app-pgresetxlog.html <-> app-pgresetwal.html
> app-pgreceivexlog.html <-> app-pgreceivewal.html
>
> (excluding the 'legal notice' one)
>
> Bruce, are you saying that we need to take Craig's patch and then add to
> it entries for all of the above, effectively removing the need for the
> web page aliases and redirects? If that was done, would that be

Yes, I think putting the compatibility section headings in our main
documentation flow will make it too hard to read and cause unnecessary
complexity, but if we have a separate section for them, adding the
section headings seems fine. This way, we don't have to add a redirect
every time we add a new entry.

> sufficient to get this committed? Are there other things that people
> can think of off-hand that we should include, I think Craig might have
> mentioned something else earlier on..? I don't think we should require
> that someone troll through everything that ever existed, just to be
> clear, as we can always add to this later if other things come up. If
> that's the expectation though, then someone needs to say so, in which
> case I'll assume it's status quo unless/until someone steps up to do
> that.

Agreed. I just wanted something that could scale going forward, and be
easily identified as compatibility, so maybe one day we can remove them.
However, if they are in a separate section, we might never do that.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-12-16 22:30:13 Re: \gsetenv
Previous Message Alastair Turner 2020-12-16 22:24:31 Re: Proposed patch for key managment