Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> OK, updated version of the patch attached and applied.
> I still object to this. What is wrong with using the catalog version > number? It's partially redundant, but only partially, and I agree that it'll probably be easier for people to use than the catversion number. The case where it's not redundant would be if an add-on needs to deal with an internal API change made in a sub-release, e.g. 8.1.4, where the catversion number is not going to change. We've certainly done that before and will do so again, when there's no other way to fix a bug. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly