Thread: Broken link in JSON Types documentation
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/datatype-json.html Description: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/datatype-json.html Links to http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159. I get a 403 error for both http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159 and http://rfc7159.net/.
=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/datatype-json.html > Links to http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159. I get a 403 error for both > http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159 and http://rfc7159.net/. In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159. Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old branches. regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:11:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159. > Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old > branches. I don't think that really cool to have user-facing documentation which goes to the void on supported branches, especially if there is an adequate replacement. Tom, do you think that this is worth updating? -- Michael
Attachment
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:11:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159. >> Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old >> branches. > I don't think that really cool to have user-facing documentation which > goes to the void on supported branches, especially if there is an > adequate replacement. Tom, do you think that this is worth updating? I didn't quite have the energy to do something about it yesterday, but if you do, feel free. (I'd suggest looking up the commit that fixed it, to see if it fixed anything else.) regards, tom lane
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I didn't quite have the energy to do something about it yesterday, > but if you do, feel free. > > (I'd suggest looking up the commit that fixed it, to see if it fixed > anything else.) Sure, that was my plan. The change is from d542859, which did not go to 9.6 and older, and committed. There was one conflict for libpq which was simple enough to fix, and I have also double-checked the rest of the docs for rogue links to RFCs. -- Michael