Обсуждение: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/X.X -- broken pages

On 10/11/20 8:08 PM, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> Not sure if this page has some incoming links from somewhere, but being
> on the page 
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/13.0/ I naturally replaced the
> version with 9.1 (omitting the minor part) -- and found something
> unexpected:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.1/ -- has "E.99.1. Migration
> to Version 9.0.1", which is, obviously, not what is expected.
>
> Moreover, the right sidebar has links to non-existnent versions such as
> 9.9: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.9/.

What, you don't remember PostgreSQL 9.9? People were so excited for it! ;)

> If I entered the full version, with minor part
> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.2.0/) it would be okay, of
> course.

I seem to recall a similar thread (which I can't seem to find) about an
error, i.e. one would put in 9.1 and it would 404. Basically, we have to
deal with three difference number schemes:

- Pre-6.0
- Pre-10.0
- Post-10.0

where each of their own quirks. I think the probability of people link
hacking the release notes to the older versions is low, but even so, we
should either have, e.g. 9.1 renders the actual 9.1.0, or we should error.

I propose we do the former. Please see attached patch.

Thanks,

Jonathan

On 10/11/20 10:25 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 10/11/20 8:08 PM, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
>> Not sure if this page has some incoming links from somewhere, but being
>> on the page 
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/13.0/ I naturally replaced the
>> version with 9.1 (omitting the minor part) -- and found something
>> unexpected:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.1/ -- has "E.99.1. Migration
>> to Version 9.0.1", which is, obviously, not what is expected.
>>
>> Moreover, the right sidebar has links to non-existnent versions such as
>> 9.9: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.9/.
>
> What, you don't remember PostgreSQL 9.9? People were so excited for it! ;)
>
>> If I entered the full version, with minor part
>> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/release/9.2.0/) it would be okay, of
>> course.
>
> I seem to recall a similar thread (which I can't seem to find) about an
> error, i.e. one would put in 9.1 and it would 404. Basically, we have to
> deal with three difference number schemes:
>
> - Pre-6.0
> - Pre-10.0
> - Post-10.0
>
> where each of their own quirks. I think the probability of people link
> hacking the release notes to the older versions is low, but even so, we
> should either have, e.g. 9.1 renders the actual 9.1.0, or we should error.
>
> I propose we do the former. Please see attached patch.

I touched up the comment on the patch and pushed it. Commit is here[1].

I'm sad to see PostgreSQL 9.9 go by the wayside, but glad that we now
have proper behavior if someone should try to link to, e.g., "9.1".

Thanks for reporting!

Jonathan

[1]
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=commitdiff;h=f923e095352f1be55d0c3658e55472271ed4d8b3