On Dec 9, 2014 10:52 PM, "Peter Eisentraut" <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On 12/5/14 1:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> I suggest we also backpatch some documentation suggesting that people > >> > manually change the include_realm parameter (perhaps also with a note > >> > saying that the default will change in 9.5). > > I'll work on a patch for back-branches if everyone is alright with this > > patch against master. > > I don't think backpatching this is necessary or appropriate. > > First of all, this isn't even released, and it might very well change > again later. The right time to publicly notify about this change is not > before when 9.5 is released. > > Also, it's not like people keep re-reading the old documentation in > order to get updated advice. It might very well be confusing if stable > documentation changes because of future events. Users who are > interested in knowing about changes in future releases should read the > release notes of those future releases. > > My comment that include_realm is supported back to 8.4 was because there > is an expectation that a pg_hba.conf file can be used unchanged across > several major releases. So when 9.5 comes out and people update their > pg_hba.conf files for 9.5, those files will still work in old releases. > But the time to do those updates is then, not now. >
I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as it helps people avoid potential security pitfalls. So not really a backpatch as so, rather a separate patch for the back branches. (and people definitely reread the docs - since they deploy new systems on the existing versions...) /Magnus
