> On 13 Feb 2024, at 21:24, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below
it, too. The RFC references ar
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below
> >> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe
> >> the wikipedia r
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below
>> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe
>> the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the
>> stability
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading"
>>> section
>>> altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading"
>> section
>> altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping a
>> stale
>> 10+ year old list of links is unlikely
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 12 Feb 2024, at 13:55, PG Doc comments form
> > wrote:
> >
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/pgcrypto.html
> > Description:
> >
> > I was going
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 13:55, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/pgcrypto.html
> Description:
>
> I was going through the links in pgcrypto documentation and I realized that
> one of the
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/pgcrypto.html
Description:
I was going through the links in pgcrypto documentation and I realized that
one of the links at Useful Reading section do not work.
interhack.net seems to be do
> On 6 Feb 2024, at 11:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2024-Feb-06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>>> On 5 Feb 2024, at 22:23, PG Doc comments form
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> This page has a link that says "See the release notes for PostgreSQL 12 for
>>> details on this change."
>>> https://www.postgres
On 2024-Feb-06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 5 Feb 2024, at 22:23, PG Doc comments form
> > wrote:
>
> > This page has a link that says "See the release notes for PostgreSQL 12 for
> > details on this change."
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/recovery-config.html
> >
> > The link
> On 5 Feb 2024, at 22:23, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> This page has a link that says "See the release notes for PostgreSQL 12 for
> details on this change."
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/recovery-config.html
>
> The link does not go to the release notes though.
While not directly
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/recovery-config.html
Description:
This page has a link that says "See the release notes for PostgreSQL 12 for
details on this change."
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/recovery-conf
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 06:17:27PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/index.html
> Description:
>
> The FAQ page https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ has a broken
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/index.html
Description:
The FAQ page https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ has a broken link at the
very bottom: "Bruce Momjian's presentation"
http://momjian.us/mai
> On 28 Oct 2021, at 14:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 01:34:40PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> AFAICT it's the same document, but updated. If we want to leave 9.6 in as
>> much
>> of a working state as possible I think it makes sense to change to that one.
>> I'm h
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 01:34:40PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> AFAICT it's the same document, but updated. If we want to leave 9.6 in as
> much
> of a working state as possible I think it makes sense to change to that one.
> I'm happy to do it if you concur.
Sure. That's fine by me.
--
Mi
> On 28 Oct 2021, at 02:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:09:41PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Indeed, that's broken. Will fix as per your suggestion.
>
> And done down to 10 as of cc1853b. 9.6 used a different link that was
> already dead, and this version will be
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:09:41PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Indeed, that's broken. Will fix as per your suggestion.
And done down to 10 as of cc1853b. 9.6 used a different link that was
already dead, and this version will be EOL'd soon, so I did not bother
changing it.
--
Michael
signat
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:01:24PM +0700, Anton Voloshin wrote:
> on https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sepgsql.html
> the "SELinux User's and Administrator's Guide" link to
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/SELinux_Users_and_Administrators_Guide/
Hello,
on https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sepgsql.html
the "SELinux User's and Administrator's Guide" link to
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/SELinux_Users_and_Administrators_Guide/
is broken, leads to 404.
Proper URI would be, apparently,
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I didn't quite have the energy to do something about it yesterday,
> but if you do, feel free.
>
> (I'd suggest looking up the commit that fixed it, to see if it fixed
> anything else.)
Sure, that was my plan. The change is from d542859
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:11:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159.
>> Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old
>> branches.
> I don't think that really cool to have user-facing doc
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:11:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159.
> Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old
> branches.
I don't think that really cool to have user-facing documentation which
goes to the voi
=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= writes:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/datatype-json.html
> Links to http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159. I get a 403 error for both
> http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159 and http://rfc7159.net/.
In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159.
Eviden
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/datatype-json.html
Description:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/datatype-json.html
Links to http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159. I get a 403 error for both
http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159 and http
I apologize for the goose chase, guys. I *meant* to be looking at the
current docs.
(dons paper bag)
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:24 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 17:41, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > The following documentation comment has been log
On 07/12/2018 17:41, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
> Description:
>
> At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html, the link to PL/Py
> is broken. Specific
Removing the PL/Py entry sounds right to me.
How about adding plv8 (https://github.com/plv8/plv8) at the same time?
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:16 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On 2018-Dec-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> >
> > > The following documentatio
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:23 AM Reece Hart wrote:
> Removing the PL/Py entry sounds right to me.
>
Yes, removal is appropriate. While I may satisfy a random urge to maintain
it in the future, I'd prefer to not encourage it as a solution.
On 2018-Dec-07, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
> > Description:
> >
> > At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/extern
On 2018-Dec-07, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
> Description:
>
> At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html, the link to PL/Py
> is broken. Specifically
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html
Description:
At https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/external-pl.html, the link to PL/Py
is broken. Specifically, the link shown is
http://python.projects.postgresql.org/b
32 matches
Mail list logo
