On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea > > to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the > > upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as it > > helps people avoid potential security pitfalls. > > I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this > is going to change in 9.5." Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we > not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree > with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well > comment that the default is changed in 9.5.
I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released feature in a backbranch doc patch. Updating the backbranch docs to add a recommendation is fine. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
