Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf

Greetings,

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> 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.

Alright, how does this look? The new entries are all under the
'obsolete' section to keep it out of the main line, but should work to
'fix' the links that currently 404 and provide a bit of a 'softer'
landing for the other cases that currently just forcibly redirect using
the website doc alias capability.

I ended up not actually doing this for the catalog -> view change of
pg_replication_slots simply because I don't really think folks will
misunderstand or be confused by that redirect since it's still the same
relation. If others disagree though, we could certainly change that
too.

> > 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.

Sure, seems like this approach addresses that.

If we have agreement from folks on this then I'll commit it and then
rework the change from default roles to predefined roles to use this
approach and then we can move forward with that too.

Thanks,

Stephen