Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> catversion is not relevant to GUC changes. It's not really necessary,
>> because you'd get a clean, easily diagnosed and repaired failure during
>> postmaster startup anyway. The point of bumping catversion is to prevent
>> a postmaster starting when the incompatibility is subtler or harder to
>> debug than that.
> The reloption is also getting renamed here.
Hmm. I forget what the behavior is if we see an unrecognized reloption
already stored in the catalogs, but it might be worth checking. If
that's something that's painful to get out of, maybe a catversion bump
would be appropriate.
(In practice this affects nobody, because there was already a catversion
bump since beta1.)
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
