Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2021-01-30 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, shouldn't there have been a catversion bump in there?
> I suppose yes on the grounds that it introduces something new in a
> freshly initdb-ed database. But I thought it wasn't necessary because
> there is no dependency between the binaries and the on-disk state.
I've generally worked on the theory that a catversion bump is indicated
if you need to initdb in order to pass the updated regression tests.
Which one did in this case. However ...
> There has already been another catversion change since, so it's no
> longer relevant.
... yeah, it's moot now.
regards, tom lane
