On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)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
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-03-27 03:16:39|
|Subject: Idea on indexes|
|Previous:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2012-03-23 02:36:40|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-03-23 14:55:52|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-23 12:50:32|
|Subject: pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.|