On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 19:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Committed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Do you think it should be backported to earlier versions too? As it
> stands, the documentation is misleading.
Well, I committed about five doc patches that day, and I had to decide
for each one whether it was worth back-patching, and if so whether it
was worth back-patching all the way or just to 9.1. (We typically
back-patch things to all applicable versions or not at all, but for
doc changes sometimes we go back exactly one release so that it will
make its way onto the most current version of the web site docs a
little bit more quickly.) I decided against back-patching this one,
on the theory that we make many documentation improvements over the
course of every major release cycle, and back-patching all of them
creates more work for translators than can really be justified by the
small number of people who read older versions of the documentation.
It's an arguable point, of course, and I wouldn't have objected if
someone else had chosen differently.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company