On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Is it reasonable to fix this now, and if so should I bump catversion
>>>> or leave it alone? My own preference is to fix it in pg_proc.h but
>>>> not touch catversion; but you could argue that different ways.
>
>> ok, then is up to you if you think that it is worth an initdb in
>> beta... i still think is excessive...
>
> The point of not wanting to change catversion is to not force an
> initdb.
>
ah! yeah! you are the one that doesn't want to touch catversion, so
i'm barking at the wrong tree then.
i have been busy and need to rest a little ;)
+1 to not touch catversion
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL