Tom Lane wrote:
>Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>
>
>>So is it firm policy that changes that require a catversion update
>>cannot be made during the 8.1 cycle?
>>
>>
>
>Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
>feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
>hackers think?
>
My personal goal for 8.1 is to get autovacuum integrated into the
backend. The patch I submitted during the 8.0 dev cycle required a new
system table for autovacuum data. Anyway we could get around that
without bumping catversion? Perhaps the vacuum daemon could add the
table if it's not found?