On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:04:03AM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> To me it looks like a minor documentation correction to fix an omission
> from a patch already in PostgreSQL.
I think that it is better to register it in the commit fest anyway so
as we don't lose track of it. Things tend to get lost easily as this
list has a lot of traffic.
I have been looking at the original patch from Daniel and got
surprised by the simple removal of the paragraph as this applies to
16828d5c where using volatile defaults still require a table rewrite.
Well, this just comes back to the point raised by Ian upthread ;p
Except for a couple of misplaced and missing markups and one typo, the
new paragraph looked fine, so committed down to v11 after fixing the
whole.
--
Michael
