Re: using pg_basebackup for point in time recovery

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:50:38PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> 
>     On 21/06/18 07:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
>     > Attached is a patch which includes your suggestion.  What do you think?
>     > As that's an improvement, only HEAD would get that clarification.
> 
>     Say what?  If the clarification applies to previous versions, as it
>     does, it should be backpatched.  This isn't a change in behavior, it's a
>     change in the description of existing behavior.
> 
> 
> Generally only actual bug fixes get back-patched; but I'd have to say this
> looks like it could easily be classified as one.

FYI, in recent discussions on the docs list:

    https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@mail.gmail.com

there was the conclusion that:

    If it's a clean backpatch I'd say it is -- people who are using
    PostgreSQL 9.6 will be reading the documentation for 9.6 etc, so they
    will not know about the fix then.
    
    If it's not a clean backpatch I can certainly see considering it, but if
    it's not a lot of effort then I'd say it's definitely worth it.

so the rule I have been using for backpatching doc stuff has changed
recently.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +