On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:50:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 21/06/18 07:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Attached is a patch which includes your suggestion. What do you think?
> > As that's an improvement, only HEAD would get that clarification.
>
> Say what? If the clarification applies to previous versions, as it
> does, it should be backpatched. This isn't a change in behavior, it's a
> change in the description of existing behavior.
>
>
> Generally only actual bug fixes get back-patched; but I'd have to say this
> looks like it could easily be classified as one.
FYI, in recent discussions on the docs list:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdrr2hew140mvn7fsbm...@mail.gmail.com
there was the conclusion that:
If it's a clean backpatch I'd say it is -- people who are using
PostgreSQL 9.6 will be reading the documentation for 9.6 etc, so they
will not know about the fix then.
If it's not a clean backpatch I can certainly see considering it, but if
it's not a lot of effort then I'd say it's definitely worth it.
so the rule I have been using for backpatching doc stuff has changed
recently.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
