Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Marc G. Fournier |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20060809162654.V7267@ganymede.hub.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>) |
Responses |
Re: Mail archive indexes are broken, URLs too
|
List | pgsql-www |
'k, rsync is back up ... for a short period, part of the archives will disappear, but a large portion of it is re-generated, and figured may as well let the 'feed server' start downloading now :) On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Just shutdown rsync while I rebuild the archives for the 'old/new' scheme, > where old is pre-July 2006 ... > > will post once its been all rebuilt ... > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> >> Is anyone working on this? Marc? If not, who can make these >> modifications to the archive numbering? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> When Marc fixed the message-boundary pattern and regenerated the >>>> archives, many of the existing messages changed URLs because they >>>> got assigned slightly different numbers. I notice that the archive >>>> search engine hasn't yet tracked this change --- if you do a search >>>> and click on a link to a message, you'll arrive at a message close >>>> to the one you want but probably not quite it. >>>> >>>> Regenerating the archive indexes is presumably not hard, but there's >>>> a bigger problem: for awhile now many of us have been in the habit >>>> of citing old discussions by archive URLs. All those links are now >>>> broken too, and I can't think of any easy way to fix them. And then >>>> there's Google etc. >>>> >>>> I wonder if it'd be better to revert the regeneration of the archives, >>>> and only apply the new message-boundary pattern to future messages. >>> >>> Agreed. There have been no changes since we discussed this. >>> >>> The best proposal was to renumber the newly-found items to the end of >>> the numeric range for the pre-July 2006 archives, and to properly number >>> July 2006 and later archives. And this date range has to be enbedded in >>> the archive script so if it is ever run again, this behavior continues >>> to happen. >>> >>> The longer we take to fix this, the more likely that people are creating >>> URL's that refer to the existing pre-July 2006 numbering which should >>> change. It needs to be fixed quickly. >>> >>> And we can't just leave it alone because old archive emails have URLs >>> that point to now-incorrect numbers, and there is no good way to fix >>> that everywhere are emails are archived. >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us >>> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com >>> >>> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + >>> >>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? >>> >>> http://archives.postgresql.org >> >> -- >> Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us >> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com >> >> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + >> > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org > Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664