On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 1:42 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Clearly we have need for documenting these renamings somewhere. We were > going to go with a simple URL redirect and a "tip" for > default/pre-installed roles, but I like the idea of doing something more > wholistic that covers all of our recent renaming cases. Let's get > buy-in from that, and then someone can work on a patch. > Is there anything further I can do to address this specific documentation issue? Can I get you to consider the user experience arising from the current docs - try using the docs to find out how to set up a standby? I'm not prepared to expand the scope of this to do a major review of all past renamings and changes without a very clear agreement about how that should be implemented in the docs and how that will address all the relevant UX issues - vanishing terms from indexes and docs without x-refs/see-alsos, vanishing URLs endpoints for public links, vanishing next-version links in www docs. I didn't raise this for discussion before I submitted a patch because I thought it was such an obvious no-brainer that a simple patch to address an obviously confusing aspect of the docs after the recovery.conf removal would be uncontroversial. Anyway, as I've noted, these things often get ignored until there is a patch to argue about. Can we please just address this docs issue? If you don't like my solution can you please supply a patch that you feel addresses the problem? Or clearly state that you don't think there is a problem, and do so in a way that actually addresses the specific points I have raised about what's wrong with the status quo?
