Re: Use of term hostaddrs for multiple hostaddr values

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use of term hostaddrs for multiple hostaddr values
Date: 2018-01-20 22:39:21
Message-ID: 20180120223921.GC1311@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 08:30:43PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> These are both clear bugs, and the docs one should definitely be both
> applied and backpatched.
>
> How much do we care about the error message when it comes to backpatching?
> Maybe we should leave that one to 11 only, to avoid breaking that, as the
> way it's written it's actually less wrong there.
>
> Thoughts?

Thanks for your input!

Applying the error message portion only on HEAD is a good plan, there is
no point to make the life of translaters unnecessary painful.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-01-20 22:45:25 Re: Use of term hostaddrs for multiple hostaddr values
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-01-20 22:36:13 Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.