"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > To be clear, because my cursory reading of the thread that was linked from > the commit suggested that this specific situation was more "lets catch up > to modern times", my position isn't that such documentation changes should > be done as a rule, I am suggesting that we give a yes/no decision on this > specific change (in advance of bike-shedding the wording). IMO neither a > blanket rule allowing or prohibiting such a change to the documentation > makes sense given the rarity of the event.
Sure. My point was just that changing the back-branch documentation would require doing additional testing to verify that the proposed value is an improvement in those branches. regards, tom lane