Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
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? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
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