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.fearing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 +
