On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > 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. >> >> I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this >> is going to change in 9.5." Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we >> not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree >> with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well >> comment that the default is changed in 9.5. > > I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released > feature in a backbranch doc patch. Updating the backbranch docs to add > a recommendation is fine.
I am strongly in agreement with that principle as well. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
