Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Is it reasonable to fix this now, and if so should I bump catversion
>>> or leave it alone? Â My own preference is to fix it in pg_proc.h but
>>> not touch catversion; but you could argue that different ways.
> ok, then is up to you if you think that it is worth an initdb in
> beta... i still think is excessive...
The point of not wanting to change catversion is to not force an
initdb.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
