Tom Lane wrote:
There are a lot of typos besides this one, and always have been.
Personally I'd rather spend the time proofing current docs.
Also, there's been a tendency in the past to not regenerate the online
docs for each point release in a stable branch (particularly for formats
like PS and
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:31:09AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
>> Since it's fixed in HEAD, I think we're fine -- we usually don't bother
>> applying documentation fixes to release branches, even if there were
>> plans for another 7.4.x release.
> Oh, i
I second Alvaro: Why is that?
-tfo
On Sep 9, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:31:09AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
There is a reference to the "sql_interitance" configuration in the
7.4.x
docs:
Since it's fixed in HEAD, I think we're fine --
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:31:09AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
> >There is a reference to the "sql_interitance" configuration in the 7.4.x
> >docs:
>
> Since it's fixed in HEAD, I think we're fine -- we usually don't bother
> applying documentation fixes to release bran
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
There is a reference to the "sql_interitance" configuration in the 7.4.x
docs:
Since it's fixed in HEAD, I think we're fine -- we usually don't bother
applying documentation fixes to release branches, even if there were
plans for another 7.4.x release.
-Neil
--
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sending this remark to the list so that I/we don't forget to patch it .
>
> Just noticed that the postgres stddev is the stddev_sample formula.
The documentation already points out that stddev is the sample sta
Folks,
Sending this remark to the list so that I/we don't forget to patch it .
Just noticed that the postgres stddev is the stddev_sample formula.
There are two different ways to calculate this value.
Their difference is very small with large samle siz
