On 2022-04-13 We 09:38, Simon Riggs wrote: > Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number > > Intended for PG15
Idea is fine, but - data, as specified in <ulink url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159";>RFC - 7159</ulink>. Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but + data, as specified in <ulink url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259";>RFC + 8259</ulink>, which supercedes the earlier <acronym>RFC</acronym> 7159. + Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but Do we need to mention the obsoleting of RFC7159? Anyone who cares enough can see that by looking at the RFC - it mentions what it obsoletes. I haven't checked that anything that changed in RFC8259 affects us. I doubt it would but I guess we should double check. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
