pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedpgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
5+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
@ 2012-03-22 19:41 Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
2012-03-23 01:21 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2012-03-22 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
Since 9.1, the minimum overhead is three bytes, not five.
Fujii Masao
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e83f827f5abeeca4750b40bd6d8701d91fead8dd
Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
2012-03-22 19:41 pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
@ 2012-03-23 01:21 ` Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:12 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fujii Masao @ 2012-03-23 01:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas@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?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
2012-03-22 19:41 pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
2012-03-23 01:21 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
@ 2012-03-23 02:12 ` Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:36 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2012-03-23 02:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>; +Cc: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>; pgsql-docs
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas@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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
2012-03-22 19:41 pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
2012-03-23 01:21 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:12 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
@ 2012-03-23 02:36 ` Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 12:51 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Fujii Masao @ 2012-03-23 02:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>; +Cc: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>; pgsql-docs
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas@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.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements.
2012-03-22 19:41 pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
2012-03-23 01:21 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:12 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:36 ` Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
@ 2012-03-23 12:51 ` Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2012-03-23 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>; +Cc: Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>; pgsql-docs
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Robert Haas <rhaas@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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-03-23 12:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-03-22 19:41 pgsql: Update docs on numeric storage requirements. Robert Haas <rhaas@postgresql.org>
2012-03-23 01:21 ` Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:12 ` Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 02:36 ` Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
2012-03-23 12:51 ` Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox