On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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? 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. >
ah! yeah! you are the one that doesn't want to touch catversion, so i'm barking at the wrong tree then. i have been busy and need to rest a little ;) +1 to not touch catversion -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
