Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> writes: > On 10/11/2025 17:16, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the number this should have bumped is PG_CONTROL_VERSION >> (thanks to the new field therein). Bumping CATALOG_VERSION_NO >> seems quite beside the point.
> Ah thanks, I forgot we have that as a separate version number. I'll go
> bump that now. (I will not try to revert the CATALOG_VERSION_NO change,
> that would be very confusing.)
Agreed, undoing it would accomplish nothing good.
regards, tom lane
