Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > This requires a catversion bump, for which it may seem a bit late; > > however I think it's better to release pg11 without a useless catalog > > column only to remove it in pg12 ...
Yeah, I really don't think we want to have another catalog column that we end up wanting to remove later on, if we can avoid it.. > Catversion bumps during beta are routine. If we had put out rc1 > I'd say it was too late, but we have not. I agree that rc1 would be too late. On the flip side, I don't think we should really consider catversion bumps during beta to be 'routine'. > If we do do a bump for beta4, I'd be strongly tempted to address the > lack of a unique index for pg_constraint as well, cf > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/10110.1535907...@sss.pgh.pa.us All that said, given that we've got two pretty good reasons for a catversion bump, and one is to remove a useless column before it ever gets in a release, I'm +1 for making both of these changes. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
