Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf

Greetings,

* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Craig Ringer (craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 03:44, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> 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 currently just forcibly redirect using
> > > the website doc alias capability.
> >
> > Thanks for expanding the change to other high profile obsoleted or renamed
> > features and tools.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review it and comment on it!
>
> > One minor point. I'm not sure this is quite the best way to spell the index
> > entries:
> >
> > +   <indexterm>
> > +     <primary>obsolete</primary>
> > +     <secondary>pg_receivexlog</secondary>
> > +   </indexterm>
> >
> > as it will produce an index term "obsolete" with a list of various
> > components under it. While that concentrates them nicely, it means people
> > won't actually find them if they're using the index alphabetically.
>
> Ah, yeah, that's definitely a good point and one that I hadn't really
> spent much time thinking about.
>
> > I'd slightly prefer
> >
> > +   <indexterm>
> > +     <primary>pg_receivexlog</primary>
> > +     <seealso>pg_receivewal</secondary>
> > +   </indexterm>
> >
> > even though that bulks the index up a little, because then people are a bit
> > more likely to find it.
>
> Yup, makes sense, updated patch attached which makes that change.
>
> > > I ended up not actually doing this for the catalog -> view change of
> > > pg_replication_slots simply because I don't really think folks will
> > > misunderstand or be confused by that redirect since it's still the same
> > > relation.  If others disagree though, we could certainly change that
> > > too.
> >
> > I agree with you.
>
> Ok, great.
>
> How does the attached look then?
>
> Bruce, did you want to review or comment on this as to if it addresses
> your concerns appropriately?  Would be great to get this in as there's
> the follow-on for default roles.

... really attached now, sorry about that. :)

Thanks,

Stephen