From: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf |
Date: | 2020-11-13 03:37:16 |
Message-ID: | CAGRY4nw_6TYE07XCQpUP=_SX3kXPJz=bxaTWu6-AEBNyw-fOfA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:31 AM Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
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 just fixing the docs...
>
Also, while I'm at it, note that a search on common search engines for
"postgres standby" takes you to (an old version of) the hot standby docs.
Follow the link to the current docs. Then try to work out from there what
exactly makes a server in "archive recovery" or "standby mode".
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/hot-standby.html
We need some <link ....> terms on "archive recovery" and "standby mode"
there, and probably other places.
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 going to get reflexively blocked too.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-11-13 03:39:52 | Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf |
Previous Message | lchch1990@sina.cn | 2020-11-13 03:32:23 | Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning |