Re: New blog - who dis? - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum |
---|---|
Subject | Re: New blog - who dis? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 7fbfadbb-58e6-4e35-83b3-37465f602d11@pgug.de Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: New blog - who dis? (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Responses |
Re: New blog - who dis?
|
List | pgsql-www |
On 11/09/2023 16:09, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 8:01 AM Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads@pgug.de> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:16 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 2:47 PM Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads@pgug.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:00 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> On 2023-Sep-04, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I plan to migrate my blog to a new software platform, which >>>>>> will also change the URLs which appear in the RSS feed. There >>>>>> is no convenient way to keep the old URLs in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most importantly, this will affect Planet PostgreSQL, which >>>>>> suddenly might see about 150 "new" blog postings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there a recommended way how to deal with such a move? >>>>> Each post in the blog has a "guid" unique identifier, which is usually >>>>> the same as the URL, but some platforms let you set up something >>>>> different. If you can "migrate" your posts to the new platform while >>>>> keeping the GUIDs, that would be best -- they would not be seen as new >>>>> posts. The actual URLs don't actually matter. >>>> >>>> The guid in my case is the full URL of the posting, including the domain. >>>> I would need to break and fix quite a few things to port this guid over to >>>> the new system, and I can easily miss something before going live. >>> You wouldn't need to keep the URL for the new posts, only the GUIDs. >>> That is, new posts could have GUIDs in a new format, old posts could >>> just use the old URL in the GUID and the new URL in the, well, URL. >> >> That's a theme change which I more or less permanently need to >> maintain. I'd avoid that, if possible. >> >> >>>> I'd rather not go down this path. >>> Strictly speaking, per the RSS requirements, you have to. Not donig >>> so will cause reposts for anybody *else* who is tracking your RSS feed >>> as well, not just Planet PostgreSQL. >> >> Correct, but I'm mostly worried about spamming Planet. >> >> >>> * No posts older than 7 days will get posted to *twitter*. They only >>> go in the planet RSS feed(s). >>> * The planet RSS feeds contain 30 items. The homepage as well. At this >>> point you can see this goes back to Aug 24, so not very far. That >>> means that any entries older than that will be ingested into the >>> system, but they won't actually be shown to anybody. >>> * The feed passed through to www.postgresql.org further restricts this >>> to just the past 10 >>> >>> So this would indicate that if you have a period of say 2 weeks of no >>> postings, *planet* won't notice. Others might. >> >> Basically not posting to Planet from this blog for 2-3 weeks, and maybe >> giving someone a heads-up should do the job? > > Yes. Note the date of your last post and keep an eye out on > planet.postgresql.org and make sure that date has "scrolled off the > end". Once it has, and it's >7 days, then you are safe from a planet > perspective. Well, can report that I made sure that the old feed url sends a 301 (permanently moved) to the new feed url. However Planet doesn't like this: Feed returned redirect (http 301) And marks the request as "Failure". Looks like the new feed url must be updated (and then the blog goes into review). -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project