Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 03:44, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thanks for expanding the change to other high profile obsoleted or renamed
> features and tools.
Thanks for taking the time to review it and comment on it!
> One minor point. I'm not sure this is quite the best way to spell the index
> entries:
>
> + <indexterm>
> + <primary>obsolete</primary>
> + <secondary>pg_receivexlog</secondary>
> + </indexterm>
>
> as it will produce an index term "obsolete" with a list of various
> components under it. While that concentrates them nicely, it means people
> won't actually find them if they're using the index alphabetically.
Ah, yeah, that's definitely a good point and one that I hadn't really
spent much time thinking about.
> I'd slightly prefer
>
> + <indexterm>
> + <primary>pg_receivexlog</primary>
> + <seealso>pg_receivewal</secondary>
> + </indexterm>
>
> even though that bulks the index up a little, because then people are a bit
> more likely to find it.
Yup, makes sense, updated patch attached which makes that change.
> > 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.
>
> I agree with you.
Ok, great.
How does the attached look then?
Bruce, did you want to review or comment on this as to if it addresses
your concerns appropriately? Would be great to get this in as there's
the follow-on for default roles.
Thanks!
Stephen
