| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: attndims, typndims still not enforced, but make the value within a sane threshold |
| Date: | 2024-09-20 04:38:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2358226.1726807096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:51:49AM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
>> Should you also bump the catalog version?
> No need to worry about that when sending a patch because committers
> take care of that when merging a patch into the tree. Doing that in
> each patch submitted just creates more conflicts and work for patch
> authors because they'd need to recolve conflicts each time a
> catversion bump happens. And that can happen on a daily basis
> sometimes depending on what is committed.
Right. Sometimes the committer forgets to do that :-(, which is
not great but it's not normally a big problem either. We've concluded
it's better to err in that direction than impose additional work
on patch submitters.
If you feel concerned about the point, best practice is to include a
mention that catversion bump is needed in your draft commit message.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-09-20 05:23:58 | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2024-09-20 04:34:11 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |