On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:51:10PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > FYI, in recent discussions on the docs list: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx I did not recall this one. Thanks for the reminder, Bruce. > 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. In the case of this thread, I think that the patch applies cleanly anyway as this comes from the period where hot standbys have been introduced. So that would not be a lot of work... Speaking of which, it would be nice to be sure about the wording folks here would prefer using before fixing anything ;p -- Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
