On 09/02/2013 04:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@dalibo.com> writes: >> Is there a reason, besides simple oversight, that commit >> 073d7cb513f5de44530f4bdbaaa4b5d4cce5f984 was not backpatched? >> I think it needs to be. > AFAICS, it was. > > Author: Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > Branch: master [073d7cb51] 2013-06-18 12:09:39 +0100 > Branch: REL9_3_STABLE [0ae1bf8c1] 2013-06-18 12:10:10 +0100 > Branch: REL9_2_STABLE [20a562f91] 2013-06-18 12:00:32 +0100 > Branch: REL9_1_STABLE [be039d4b2] 2013-06-18 12:05:48 +0100
That does seem to indicate it was. But it doesn't seem they made it to the website: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-altertable.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/sql-altertable.html -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
