On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 9:55 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > But did you notice that the version went backwards from 65.1 -> 66.1? > Well, actually, it didn't. The version of that collation in 66.1 went > from 153.97 -> 153.104. But there's a bug in versionToString() that > does the decimal output incorrectly when there's a '0' digit between > the hundreds and the ones place. I'll see about reporting that, but I > thought I'd mention it here because it could have consequences, as we > are storing the strings :-( > > The bug is still present in 70.1, but it's masked because it went to > .112. > > Incidentally, this answers our other question about whether the > collation version can change in a minor version update. Perhaps not, > but if they fix this bug and backport it, then the version *string* > will change in a minor update. Ugh.
That is ... astonishingly bad. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com