* Tom Lane ([email protected]) wrote: > Stephen Frost <[email protected]> writes: > > * Tom Lane ([email protected]) wrote: > >> It looks to me like this changed the representation of stored rules, so it > >> should have included a catversion bump. This is particularly relevant to > >> the 9.5 branch where people already have alpha installations. > > > I had considererd if a bump was needed and figured it wasn't. > > > I don't mind doing a bump if we feel it's necessary and maybe I'm > > missing that there's a way to cause that node type to end up in the > > catalog, but I don't think so, as we only ever build WithCheckOption > > nodes in the rewriter. > > Oh, I see. In that case you should remove WithCheckOption from the set of > node types supported by readfuncs.c, both because it's dead code and to > clarify that the node is not meant to ever end up on disk.
Yeah, I was just thinking the same. > (outfuncs.c support is useful for debugging though, so keep that.) Right, makes sense. I should be able to get to that tomorrow afternoon, til then I'm pretty tied up with PostgresOpen. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
