On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:25 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 1:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:57 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 2:53 PM Robert Sjöblom
> > > <robert.sjoblom@fortnox.se> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached is the revised version.
> > > >
> > >
> > > v4 looks good to me.
> > >
> >
> > The latest version looks good to me as well. I think we should
> > backpatch this change as this is a user-facing message change in docs
> > and code. What do you guys think?
> >
>
> I do not know the exact criteria for deciding to back-patch, but I am
> not sure back-patching is so important for this one.
>
> It is not a critical bug-fix, and despite being a user-facing change,
> there is no functional change.
>
Right neither this is a functional change nor a critical but where any
work will be stopped due to this but I think we do prefer to backpatch
changes (doc) where user-facing docs have an additional explanation.
For example, see [1][2]. OTOH, there is an argument that we should do
this only in v17 but I guess this is a simple improvement that will be
helpful for even current users, so it is better to change this in
existing branches as well.
[1] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=e126d817c7af989c47366b0e344ee83d761f334a
[2] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=f170b572d2b4cc232c5b6d391b4ecf3e368594b7
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
