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@mail.gmail.com
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
