* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:39:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> BTW, it seems like there is consensus that we ought to reorder the items > >> in a jsonb object to have keys first and then values, independently of the > >> other issues under discussion. This means we *will* be breaking on-disk > >> compatibility with 9.4beta2, which means pg_upgrade will need to be taught > >> to refuse an upgrade if the database contains any jsonb columns. Bruce, > >> do you have time to crank out a patch for that? > > > Yes, I can do that easily. Tell me when you want it --- I just need a > > catalog version number to trigger on. > > Done --- 201409291 is the cutover point.
Just to clarify- the commit bumped the catversion to 201409292, so version <= 201409291 has the old format while version > 201409291 has the new format. There was no 201409291, so I suppose it doesn't matter too much, but technically 'version >= 201409291' wouldn't be accurate. I'm guessing this all makes sense for how pg_upgrade works, but I found it a bit surprising that the version mentioned as the cutover point wasn't the catversion committed. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature