MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20121126200150.GD23214@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAMkU=1xdumQ1FeBR=EJAeagjy1+76L9A5ALzE=Dk+yTA2DOs8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121123234205.GA1605@momjian.us>
	<CAMkU=1y3RveOPn_8c0X8ZTOeiD7A9dwP1GqUoKDU62V_s_zFXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121124013644.GA9382@momjian.us>
	<CAMkU=1ysXB3GSz4FMRVSJcFfjPtuutktGLeFsmZ7A8o53yq2Aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121126200150.GD23214@momjian.us>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:17:18 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAMkU=1w8HpWxWQf1-75KypmQxgB7fxM5NM_r8FZTSe2D=FsNNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 8.4 doc bug for "Incrementally Updated Backups"
From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 01:56:27PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 04:26:48PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > We don't assume people are reading docs from very old versions.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Even if that is the version they are using?  It is, after all, still
>> >> under maintenance,
>> >
>> > There are three options for doc patches:
>> >
>> > 1.  patch only git head, meaning the next major release
>> > 2.  do #1, plus the most recent major released version, e.g. 9.2.X
>> > 3.  #1, #2, and all major supported released versions
>> >
>> > In general, #1 is normally for wording clarifications, #2 is for usage
>> > clarifications, and #3 is to correct mistakes.  Not sure I follow that
>> > 100%, but that is what I normally do.
>> >
>> > Is that process good?  Did I not follow it?
>>
>> It was removed from 9.0 because it was considered to be unreliable.  I
>> think that unreliable advice about taking backups is a mistake, so it
>> should have followed path #3.  I guess it is also clarification, but a
>> pretty major one.
>
> I checked just now and the unreliable advice does not appear in 8.4, so
> it possible that in 2010 I checked and found it only applied back to
> 9.0, or I might only have checked 9.0.

The docs were re-arranged, so it is present but in a different place.

Sorry, I should have included the URL in the first place (24.4.5) :

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/warm-standby.html

Cheers,

Jeff


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs