Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > Do people really search for something with a specific version
> > specified? I've never done that, because I rarely particularly need
> > to, and because I think that it wouldn't work.
>
> Fwiw when I searched for Oracle docs I found including version numbers
> *did* reliably produce better results. In that case the problem is
> that there are too many blogs and support pages that try to help and
> you have to include extra terms to filter out just the most helpful
> ones. Including terms like version numbers really helps winnow out the
> chaff of pages that are for older or newer versions or aren't
> technical enough to specify what version they're for.
>
>
> I think a more realistic scenario to consider is someone running an
> older release and searching for something like
> "ssl_renegotiation_limit" or "wal_level hot_standby" would find
> nothing at all rather than documentation for a version that may be
> what they're actually running. Now.... the fact that
> ssl_renogitation_limit is the *only* such example could find more
> recent than 9.2 may mean it's rare enough that it's not much of a
> concern
>

Yeah, that's a bigger issue - there'd be no way at all to get hits on that
in google then, would there? And I think cutting that argument off at
supported releases (9.2) is too soon - people migrating *off* earlier
versions for example, would still be interested in searching for them.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to say checkpoint_segments, btw? Surely there
must be more than just those?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/