> On 18 Aug 2017, at 09:28, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2017, at 03:26, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since all supported versions have this as a parameter, this seems to mainly
>> serve as a help for anyone upgrading from 9.1 (or earlier) so mentioning when
>> the change happened makes sense. I added a note here (and on root.crl) stating
>> the version.
>
> Thanks for the new version.
Thanks for reviewing!
> - the server, i.e. signed by a certificate in the server's
> - <filename>root.crt</filename> file.
> + the server, i.e. signed by a certificate in the server's root certificate
> + file.
> </para>
> Do you think it would be worth adding a mention to ssl_ca_file in the
> server's postgresql.conf? With a link to it?
I tried but couldn’t come up with anything that didn’t seem to confuse it
rather than make it clearer. Suggestions welcome, else we can leave it.
> + In earlier versions of PostgreSQL, the name of this file was
> + hard-coded as <filename>root.crl</filename>. As of
> + <productname>PostgreSQL</> 9.2 it is a configuration parameter.
> No need to mention PostgreSQL twice here? Or the first one should use
> the markup productname.
From reading, it seems the common thing is to write the full name when
referencing a version, even when superfluous like here. Personally I don’t
have strong opinions, I was just trying to follow the style.
Re the productname markup, that raises an interesting question. There are more
than 2000 <productname>PostgreSQL</> in the docs, and somewhere just south of
250 plain PostgreSQL (not counting old release notes and titles etc). Should
all occurrences of PostgreSQL, in text content, be wrapped in productname tags?
It’s probably more for consistency than anything else, and I’m happy to do the
work, but only if it’s deemed worthwhile to do so.
cheers ./daniel