Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 02:47:13PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johnston@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:42 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > > The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections just to allow for
> > > > references to old syntax, and you then have to find them all and remove
> > > > them when you implement the proper solution. I have no intention of
> > > > applying such an X-1 fix.
> > >
> > > X = 2; seems like a strong objection for such a minor issue. The status
> > > quo seems worse than that.
> >
> > I've been thinking about this and I think I'm on Craig and David's side-
> > having something cleaner, and clearer, than just http redirects and such
> > would be good for these cases and I don't think we are going to end up
> > with so many of them that it ends up becoming an issue.
>
> We were not going to use just redirects --- we were going to create a
> page that had all the renames listed, with links to the new names.
Maybe I'm the one who is confused here, but I thought there was
objection to adding a new section/page which covers these topics (which
is what Craig's original patch does)...? If there isn't an objection to
that then it seems like we should move forward with it.
If I'm following correctly, maybe there was some idea that we should
have more things added to this section than just the recovery.conf bits,
and perhaps we should, but that could certainly be done later. To be
clear though, I don't think we need to do this in all cases- the
existing flow for pg_xlogdump -> pg_waldump works pretty well. Maybe we
add in a note here too if someone wants to but I don't think it's
strictly necessary for the 'simple' rename cases.
I also feel like that could be done once the section gets added, if
someone wants to.
Was there something else that I'm missing here in terms of what the
concern is regarding Craig's patch..?
Thanks,
Stephen
