Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bumping catversion due to changes to pg_trigger and pg_rewrite.

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> BTW, the comment in this file says that we hope we never have more than
>> 10 catversion changes per day, but to even make this possible we should
>> start counting at zero, shouldn't we?

> The comment says "hopefully we'll never commit ten independent sets of
> catalog changes on the same day" (not > 10), so the comment isn't wrong.
> But I guess there wouldn't be any harm at starting at zero...

Well, if we were seriously concerned about that we'd use 2 digits for NN
(and accept the risk that the scheme breaks down in 2147, if people are
still using Postgres and 32-bit ints then). But I don't think I've ever
seen N get as high as 3, so I'm not worried. Given that we have some
headroom there, I'd sooner stick with 1-based counting --- the YYYY,
MM, and DD parts of the value are 1-based so it seems odd to decree
that N is 0-based.

regards, tom lane