On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org> wrote:
>>>> Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Since 9.1, the minimum overhead is three bytes, not five.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the commit!
>>>
>>> I think that it's worth backporting this to 9.1. Thought?
>>
>> I thought about it, but it didn't seem important enough to bother with.
>
> Yes, most v9.1 users would not bother that. But some actually did that.
> I reported this issue because I received the complaint from them. So I'm
> still thinking that it's worth backporting unless the backport needs
> unacceptable lots of effort.
Fine, I don't care that much. I don't agree that every minor doc
correction needs to be back-patched, but neither do I want to argue
about it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
