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
about it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. at 2012-03-23 02:36:40 from Fujii Masao

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.