| From: | Dmitriy Kuzmin <kuzmin(dot)db4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inaccuracy in wal_receiver_status_interval parameter description |
| Date: | 2021-02-26 12:32:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAHLDt=8LPJxmjMzDQ-uBP+SkA+ahx5Q=XbJnXymq6ces+_jFFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hi Michael.
IMHO, if each supported version behaves as described in this paragraph,
then the patch should also be applied to the documentation for each version.
Best regards,
Dmitriy Kuzmin
чт, 25 февр. 2021 г. в 12:41, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:16:57PM +1000, Dmitriy Kuzmin wrote:
> > Will this change be made in the documentation for all Postgresql
> versions?
>
> This wording has been introduced back in 2011 as of b186523, and
> nobody complained about that until now, so I did not see a strong need
> to back-patch it. Would people prefer a back-patch for that?
> --
> Michael
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-02-26 16:54:18 | Re: incoorect restore_command |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-02-26 05:42:03 | Re: incoorect restore_command |