Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ]

This is where the link to the online version was; reading the sgml
and/or compiling ends up being a bit more than I wanted to do to review
these.

>
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com <javascript:;>> writes:
> > "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs
> > rewording.
>
> Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not
> sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward.
>

Removing it doesn't seem like a bad choice...The user should realize the
relevant preceding linked guc is where they should look for more details -
pointing it out to them seems verbose. But the meaning is clear regardless
of familiarity.

> > Is it worth mentioning the deprecation of exclusive backups in the notes
> > introducing non-exclusive ones?
>
> It's not clear to me that we're actually deprecating them; there did not
> seem to be consensus on that.

>
Then section 24.3.3 needs fixing. The second paragraph explicitly states it
is deprecated.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/continuous-archiving.html

David J.