On 2020-05-26 03:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 01:42:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:08:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Why was this backpatched?
Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as
possible in back branches.
Because this is a cosmetic-only change and not something user-visible,
so it may be surprising to see it back-patched. I was a bit surprised
first, but after looking at it I don't have any problem with what you
did, and you actually made the effort to back-patch it.
I use doc backpatching logic we discussed in this 2018 thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU%3DdfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw%40mail.gmail.com#6a92eb3360700dd4d2d392d2b91021ba
In that thread, the old documentation was factually wrong. So
correcting it is legitimate and desirable.
What I object to is backpatching inconsequential wording and formatting
changes. If it's not wrong, it should be left alone.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
