Re: unlogged tables

On tis, 2010-11-16 at 15:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Btw., I would recommend that even in-progress or proposed patches
> > include catversion updates, which helps communicate the message such
> as
> > yours in a more robust manner and also reduces the chance of
> forgetting
> > the catversion change in the final commit.
>
> I thought we had a policy of NOT doing that, because of the merge
> conflicts thereby created.

I don't know, but I for one *want* the merge conflict, because if I'm
actually merging two diverging lines of system catalog changes, then I
had better stop and think about it.

> It's also hard to know what value to set
> it to; whatever you pick will certainly be obsolete by commit time.

Well, the most important thing is that it's different from the last
value, but I have occasionally wondered about a way to support tagging
branches separately.