Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZJRzL4aVdVSyY8ivcWzb6YXwZ0s8N6PRMVFeRGhg2BLQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm OK with adding a note either to the 9.0 docs only (which means it
>> might be missed by a 9.0 user who only looks at the current docs) or
>> with adding a note to all versions mentioning the difference in
>> behavior with 9.0, but I'm not really sure which way to go with it.
>> Or we could just not do anything at all.  Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> It seems to be somewhat of a burden to carry a version-specific note
> indefinitely... more clutter than helpful. So I'd vote for just changing
> the 9.0 docs.
>
> Or, we could add the 9.0-specific note to 9.0 and 9.1 docs, but leave it
> out of 'master'. That way it sticks around for a while but we don't have
> to remember to remove it later.

Having thought about this a bit further, I'm coming around to the view
that if it isn't worth adding this in master, it's not worth adding at
all.  I just don't think it's going to get any visibility as a
back-branch only doc patch.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL versus system catalog cache invalidation
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Change format of FDW options used in \d* commands (was: Re: per-column FDW options, v5)