On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I think this can be blamed on a9ba6195f, which I only back-patched as > >> far as 9.5 --- guess I didn't realize that the bogus section name > >> existed further back. So I think the answer to your direct question > >> is "a single page", but maybe we should instead proceed by bringing 9.4 > >> into line with the later branches and then updating the docs? > > > Adding the mapping to the website was a single row in a db table, and is > > already done, so it wasn't a lot of work. But there might be other > reasons > > to change it of course, for consistency. > > > Of course, actually *changing* it in 9.4 now will break any external > links > > pointing to it. Links within our own documentation will pick it up and > > change accordingly, but anything that's linking from the outside will > > generate 404s. > > The db table doesn't result in generating redirects then, I take it? > Nope, the db table doesn't have the versions. It's just: pgweb=> select * from docsalias where id=6; id | file1 | file2 ----+-----------------------------------+-------------------------------- 6 | catalog-pg-replication-slots.html | view-pg-replication-slots.html (1 row) So trying to figure out exactly what and where to redirect would be way too hard to get right I think. > Since you already have a fix, I suppose we should leave well enough > alone. This isn't a big enough deal to expend a lot of sweat on. > Agreed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
