[DOCS] VALIDATE CONSTRAINT

2013-09-02 Thread Vik Fearing
Is there a reason, besides simple oversight, that commit 073d7cb513f5de44530f4bdbaaa4b5d4cce5f984 was not backpatched? I think it needs to be. -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql

Re: [DOCS] VALIDATE CONSTRAINT

2013-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Vik Fearing 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 Branch: master [073d7cb51] 2013-06-18 12:09:39 +0100 Branch: REL9_3_STABLE [0ae1bf8c1] 20

Re: [DOCS] VALIDATE CONSTRAINT

2013-09-02 Thread Vik Fearing
On 09/02/2013 04:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing 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 > Branch: master [073d7cb51] 2013-06-18 1

Re: [DOCS] VALIDATE CONSTRAINT

2013-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Vik Fearing writes: > On 09/02/2013 04:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Vik Fearing writes: >>> Is there a reason, besides simple oversight, that commit >>> 073d7cb513f5de44530f4bdbaaa4b5d4cce5f984 was not backpatched? >> AFAICS, it was. > That does seem to indicate it was. But it doesn't seem they m

Re: [DOCS] VALIDATE CONSTRAINT

2013-09-02 Thread Vik Fearing
On 09/02/2013 06:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > The website has the docs as of the latest releases, and we've not > issued any new minor releases since April. (Yeah, we're overdue.) That does indeed explain it. Thanks. -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To mak