Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> > Awesome, attached is just a rebase (not that anything really changed).
> > Unless someone wants to speak up, I'll commit this soonish (hopefully
> > tomorrow, but at least sometime later this w
Greetings,
* Euler Taveira (eu...@eulerto.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021, at 2:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Unless there's anything further, will commit these soon.
> I briefly looked at this patch and have a few comments.
>
> +
> + pg_receivexlog renamed to
> pg_recievewal
>
> s/pg_rec
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021, at 2:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Unless there's anything further, will commit these soon.
I briefly looked at this patch and have a few comments.
+
+ pg_receivexlog renamed to
pg_recievewal
s/pg_recievewal/pg_receivewal/
+
+ Obsolete or renamed features, settings and fi
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> Awesome, attached is just a rebase (not that anything really changed).
> Unless someone wants to speak up, I'll commit this soonish (hopefully
> tomorrow, but at least sometime later this week).
Alright, as this took a bit more playing with
Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (craig.rin...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> Pretty good to me. Thanks so much for your help and support with this.
Thanks for helping me move it forward!
> Index entries render as e.g.
>
> pg_xlogdump, The pg_xlogdump command
> (see also pg_waldump)
>
> whera
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 02:45, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> > * Craig Ringer (craig.rin...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 03:44, Stephen Frost
> wrote:
> > > > Alright, how does this look? The new entries are all under
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Craig Ringer (craig.rin...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 03:44, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Alright, how does this look? The new entries are all under the
> > > 'obsolete' section to keep it out of the main line, but
Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (craig.rin...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 03:44, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Alright, how does this look? The new entries are all under the
> > 'obsolete' section to keep it out of the main line, but should work to
> > 'fix' the links that currently 4
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 03:44, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Alright, how does this look? The new entries are all under the
> 'obsolete' section to keep it out of the main line, but should work to
> 'fix' the links that currently 404 and provide a bit of a 'softer'
> landing for the other cases that c
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 02:00:23PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > > Yes, that is pretty much the same thing I was suggesting, except that
> > > each rename has its own _original_ URL link, which I
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 02:00:23PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > Yes, that is pretty much the same thing I was suggesting, except that
> > each rename has its own _original_ URL link, which I think is also
> > acceptable. My desire is for these items t
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Obviously, I'd then have to adjust the patch that I proposed for default
> > roles, or move forward with it as-is, depending on what we end up doing
> > here. I dislike w
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:00 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> Obviously, I'd then have to adjust the patch that I proposed for default
> roles, or move forward with it as-is, depending on what we end up doing
> here. I dislike what feels like a state of limbo for this right now
> though.
>
>
We have a
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 08:07:47PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:33, David G. Johnston
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I think the ideal solution is to c
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 08:07:47PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:33, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I think the ideal solution is to create a section for all the rename
> cases and do all the re
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:33, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> I think the ideal solution is to create a section for all the rename
>> cases and do all the redirects to that page. The page would list the
>> old and new name for each item, and wo
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think the ideal solution is to create a section for all the rename
> cases and do all the redirects to that page. The page would list the
> old and new name for each item, and would link to the section for each
> new item.
>
>
Nothing preve
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 05:57:01PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > We were not going to use just redirects --- we were going to create a
> > page that had all the renames listed, with links to the new names.
>
> Maybe I'm the one who is confused here, bu
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 02:47:13PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 02:47:13PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections just to allow for
> > > references to old synt
Greetings,
* David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections just to allow for
> > references to old syntax, and you then have to find them all and remove
> > them when you impleme
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> The downside is you end up with X-1 dummy sections just to allow for
> references to old syntax, and you then have to find them all and remove
> them when you implement the proper solution. I have no intention of
> applying such an X-1 fi
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:31:35AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:11:04AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Can we please just address this docs issue? If you don't like my
> solution
> can
> > y
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:25 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:11:04AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:11:04AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> 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 actua
Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (craig.rin...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 1:42 AM Bruce Momjian 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 lik
On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 1:42 AM Bruce Momjian 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 r
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 1:49 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> I think the big problem, and I have seen this repeatedly, is showing up
>> with a patch without discussing whether people actually want the
>> featur
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:42 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think the big problem, and I have seen this repeatedly, is showing up
> with a patch without discussing whether people actually want the
> feature. I know it is a doc issue, but our TODO list has the order as:
>
> Desirability ->
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:50 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> > So you are saying you don't think you are getting sufficient thought
> > into your proposal, and getting just a reflex? Just because we don't
> > agree with
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:50 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So you are saying you don't think you are getting sufficient thought
> > into your proposal, and getting just a reflex? Just because we don't
> > agree with you don't mean we didn't think about it. In fact, we have
> > thought about it
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:41:49PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:37:16AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > I have a draft patch that adds them and various related index
> > cross-referencing
> > in my tree to submit after the recovery.conf docs patch. Let me know if you
> >
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 22:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Because at a certain point the number of _old_ names in the docs
> obscures exactly how to operate the current software. We have tried
> keeping stuff around, and we are very bad at removing stuff.
>
This is a good point, but does not attempt t
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:37:16AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I have a draft patch that adds them and various related index
> cross-referencing
> in my tree to submit after the recovery.conf docs patch. Let me know if you
> think that might be worthwhile, 'cos I won't invest time in it if it's g
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 22:31, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> I maintain that simply vanishing terms from the docs without any sort of
> explanation is a user-hostile action that we should fix and stop doing If
> we had something in the docs and we remove it, it's not unduly burdensome
> to have some inde
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:31:24AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why the solution I proposed is not acceptable, and why we
> have to invent a different one instead? The website redirect is good and all,
> but doesn't really solve the problem, and I still don't know what's wrong w
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:31 AM Craig Ringer
wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me why the solution I proposed is not acceptable, and why
> we have to invent a different one instead? The website redirect is good
> and all, but doesn't really solve the problem, and I still don't know
> what's wrong with
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:25 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Now, the pgweb feature that Jonathan wrote recently might actually be
> > exactly what we need to fix that, and to address the issue with
> > recovery config documentation that Craig raises.
>
> After chatting with Jonathan about this fo
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:47:42AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Fortunately, this has already been discussed in the renaming of default
> > roles to predefined roles:
> >
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/157742545062.1149.11052653770497832538%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
> >
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:21:02AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > > Here's how the rendered docs look: https://imgur.com/a/VyjzEw5
> > >
> > > Think. You're used to recovery.conf. You've recentl
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:21:02AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Here's how the rendered docs look: https://imgur.com/a/VyjzEw5
> >
> > Think. You're used to recovery.conf. You've recently switched to pg 12. You
> > search for "recovery.conf
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:21:02AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Here's how the rendered docs look: https://imgur.com/a/VyjzEw5
>
> Think. You're used to recovery.conf. You've recently switched to pg 12. You
> search for "recovery.conf" or "primary_slot_name" or "standby_mode" or
> something. You o
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:01 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 08:59:40PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 11 Nov 2020, at 20:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >
> > >> I noticed that when recovery.conf was remo
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:44 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2dedf4d9a8 (yay!) the
> docs for
> > it were removed completely as well. That's largely sensible, but is
> confu
> On 11 Nov 2020, at 21:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 08:59:40PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 11 Nov 2020, at 20:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 08:59:40PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 11 Nov 2020, at 20:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> >> I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2dedf4d9a8 (yay!) the
> >> docs for
> >> it were removed
> On 11 Nov 2020, at 20:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2dedf4d9a8 (yay!) the docs
>> for
>> it were removed completely as well. That's largely sensible, but is confusing
>> when users ha
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:44 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2dedf4d9a8 (yay!) the
> docs for
> > it were removed completely as well. That's largely sensible, but is
> conf
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:14PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2dedf4d9a8 (yay!) the docs
> for
> it were removed completely as well. That's largely sensible, but is confusing
> when users have upgraded and are trying to find out what h
Hi all
I noticed that when recovery.conf was removed in 2dedf4d9a8 (yay!) the docs
for it were removed completely as well. That's largely sensible, but is
confusing when users have upgraded and are trying to find out what
happened, or how to configure equivalent functionality.
https://www.postgre
50 matches
Mail list logo
