On tis, 2010-11-16 at 15:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > Btw., I would recommend that even in-progress or proposed patches > > include catversion updates, which helps communicate the message such > as > > yours in a more robust manner and also reduces the chance of > forgetting > > the catversion change in the final commit. > > I thought we had a policy of NOT doing that, because of the merge > conflicts thereby created.
I don't know, but I for one *want* the merge conflict, because if I'm actually merging two diverging lines of system catalog changes, then I had better stop and think about it. > It's also hard to know what value to set > it to; whatever you pick will certainly be obsolete by commit time. Well, the most important thing is that it's different from the last value, but I have occasionally wondered about a way to support tagging branches separately. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
