Re: ARC patent

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?