Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable
Date: 2021-08-31 19:38:18
Message-ID: 1967929.1630438698@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 3:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, you need to bump catversion.

> Done, thanks for confirming.

For future reference --- I think it's potentially confusing to use
the same catversion number in different branches, except for the
short time after a new branch where the initial catalog contents
are actually identical. So the way I'd have done this is to use
202108311 in the back branch and 202108312 in HEAD. It's not
terribly important, but something to note for next time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2021-08-31 19:39:59 [PATCH] Support pg_ident mapping for LDAP
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-08-31 19:34:42 Re: CFM for september commitfest