On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:28 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Proposed patch attached. The existing text already says "GIN indexes are > the preferred text search index type", so I'm not sure we need to go > further than that about guiding people which one to use. In particular, > since GIN can't support included columns, we can't really deprecate GiST > altogether here.
LGTM. > > There is always the extreme option of excluding older versions in > > robots.txt. I bet that would work. > > Yeah, I was wondering about that too. It's sort of the nuclear option, > but if we don't want to modify EOL'd versions then we may not have any > other way to keep Google from glomming onto them. I think that our recent decision to just live with the downsides that go with making the most recent stable release docs canonical was a wise one, on balance. The reality is that we have very few ways of influencing search results from Google. I don't know enough about the topic to be able to claim that the robots.txt solution would also work out well, in about the same way. But I suspect that it might, and know that it's a reversible process. -- Peter Geoghegan