On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rh...@postgresql.org> wrote: >>>> Update docs on numeric storage requirements. >>>> >>>> Since 9.1, the minimum overhead is three bytes, not five. >>> >>> Thanks for the commit! >>> >>> I think that it's worth backporting this to 9.1. Thought? >> >> I thought about it, but it didn't seem important enough to bother with. > > Yes, most v9.1 users would not bother that. But some actually did that. > I reported this issue because I received the complaint from them. So I'm > still thinking that it's worth backporting unless the backport needs > unacceptable lots of effort.
Fine, I don't care that much. I don't agree that every minor doc correction needs to be back-patched, but neither do I want to argue about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
