Thread: 7.3 docs
Now that we have the 8.1 docs (yeah, I know, we've had for a while, but.), I would suggest removing the 7.3 interactive docs, and move them off to the archive. Anybody against this? //Magnus
On Saturday 04 March 2006 09:22, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Now that we have the 8.1 docs (yeah, I know, we've had for a while,
> but.), I would suggest removing the 7.3 interactive docs, and move them
> off to the archive. Anybody against this?
>
ISTR this was discussed and decided against, since we still actively support
7.3. (See also links to 7.3 releases on the homepage)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> > Now that we have the 8.1 docs (yeah, I know, we've had for a while, > > but.), I would suggest removing the 7.3 interactive docs, and move > > them off to the archive. Anybody against this? > > > > ISTR this was discussed and decided against, since we still > actively support 7.3. (See also links to 7.3 releases on the > homepage) I thought that was pre-8.1. :-) But yeah, it's a point. I'll look towards other more efficient ways to decreas the docs build process :-) //Magnus
> I thought that was pre-8.1. :-) > > But yeah, it's a point. I'll look towards other more efficient ways to > decreas the docs build process :-) > I don't think we need to keep the 7.3 interactive docs... The static docs are probably still good to have around. Joshua D. Drake > //Magnus > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > > -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I thought that was pre-8.1. :-) >> >> But yeah, it's a point. I'll look towards other more efficient ways to >> decreas the docs build process :-) >> > I don't think we need to keep the 7.3 interactive docs... The static > docs are probably still good to have around. I'm about 50-50 split on this one ... but, if we are still actively supporting a version of PostgreSQL, we are acknowledging that ppl *are* still using it, and, therefore, ppl could still be annotating the interactie docs ... But ... the docs themselves are pretty static, so *why* are they being regenerated on a regular basis in the first place? Couldn't you just regenerate those files that have comments attached to them, instead of all of them each time? It would make the mirrors faster too, since they wouldn't have to pull down new copies of the complete docs each time, but only those pages that have actually had changes made to them ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > I'm about 50-50 split on this one ... but, if we are still actively > supporting a version of PostgreSQL, we are acknowledging that ppl > *are* still using it, and, therefore, ppl could still be annotating > the interactie docs ... > Speaking of this... why doesn't every single page of the 7.3, 7.4 and 8.0 docs say: 8.1.3 is the latest stable version of PostgreSQL. AND: 7.4.x (or 7.3.x etc) is the latest version of the 7.4 series. If you are not running this version you need to upgrade. > But ... the docs themselves are pretty static, so *why* are they being > regenerated on a regular basis in the first place? Couldn't you just > regenerate those files that have comments attached to them, instead of > all of them each time? It would make the mirrors faster too, since > they wouldn't have to pull down new copies of the complete docs each > time, but only those pages that have actually had changes made to them > ... > > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 >
> >> I thought that was pre-8.1. :-) > >> > >> But yeah, it's a point. I'll look towards other more > efficient ways > >> to decreas the docs build process :-) > >> > > I don't think we need to keep the 7.3 interactive docs... > The static > > docs are probably still good to have around. > > I'm about 50-50 split on this one ... but, if we are still > actively supporting a version of PostgreSQL, we are > acknowledging that ppl *are* still using it, and, therefore, > ppl could still be annotating the interactie docs ... > > But ... the docs themselves are pretty static, so *why* are > they being regenerated on a regular basis in the first place? > Couldn't you just regenerate those files that have comments > attached to them, instead of all of them each time? It would > make the mirrors faster too, since they wouldn't have to pull > down new copies of the complete docs each time, but only > those pages that have actually had changes made to them ... Yeah, that would be the "more efficient ways". It's the main problem with how the site is built now - there's basically a mirror script that runs across the whole site as a web-browser and pulls it all down. It takes about an hour ion the new vm with docs incldued (on the old one, that would be 20+ hours). When nothing has changed it the docs and very little in the main site (the normal way) it takes 5-10 minutes less. The good news is that with the new VM we now appear completeyl CPU-bound with the php mirror script instead of I/O bound as we were with unionfs. Oh, and we don't actually *update* the other files. It takes almost as long to verify that they haven't changed, since we then pull down the page through http and compare it to the file. We only write it when it has changed. And yes, that optimisation helped a lot for the mirror syncup time. //Magnus