On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:25 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 1:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:57 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 2:53 PM Robert Sjöblom > > > <robert.sjob...@fortnox.se> wrote: > > > > > > > > Attached is the revised version. > > > > > > > > > > v4 looks good to me. > > > > > > > The latest version looks good to me as well. I think we should > > backpatch this change as this is a user-facing message change in docs > > and code. What do you guys think? > > > > I do not know the exact criteria for deciding to back-patch, but I am > not sure back-patching is so important for this one. > > It is not a critical bug-fix, and despite being a user-facing change, > there is no functional change. >
Right neither this is a functional change nor a critical but where any work will be stopped due to this but I think we do prefer to backpatch changes (doc) where user-facing docs have an additional explanation. For example, see [1][2]. OTOH, there is an argument that we should do this only in v17 but I guess this is a simple improvement that will be helpful for even current users, so it is better to change this in existing branches as well. [1] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=e126d817c7af989c47366b0e344ee83d761f334a [2] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=f170b572d2b4cc232c5b6d391b4ecf3e368594b7 -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.