On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:43:18PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:45 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:47:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Your changes look fine to me on the first read. I will push this to
> > > HEAD unless there are any objections. If we want them in
> > > back-branches, we might want to probably segregate the changes based
> > > on the branch until those apply.
> >
> > +1. It would be nice to back-patch the user-visible changes in the
> > docs.
> >
>
> Fair enough, Justin, is it possible for you to segregate the changes
> that can be backpatched?
Looks like the whole patch can be applied to master and v12 [0].
My original thread from last year was about docs added in v12, so bloom.sgml is
the only user-facing doc which can be backpatched. README.parallel and
bufmgr.c changes could be backpatched but I agree it's not necessary.
Note, the bloom typo seems to complete a change that was started here:
|commit 31ff51adc855e3ffe8e3c20e479b8d1a4508feb8
|Author: Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov@postgresql.org>
|Date: Mon Oct 22 00:23:26 2018 +0300
|
| Fix some grammar errors in bloom.sgml
|
| Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D3sijpGr8tXdyz-7EJJZfhQHABPKEQ29gpnb7-XSy%2B%3D5A%40mail.gmail.com
| Reported-by: Thomas Munro
| Backpatch-through: 9.6
Justin
[0] modulo a fix for a typo which I introduced in another patch in this branch,
which shouldn't have been in this patch; fixed in the attached.