Re: [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new node types added by partitioning supp

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +0000, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to
> PartitionBoundSpec
> > >> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in
> > >> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c.  This is fairly harmless for production
> purposes
> > >> (since readfuncs.c would just substitute -1 anyway) but it's still
> bogus.
> > >> It's not worth forcing a post-beta1 initdb just to fix this, but if we
> > >> have another reason to force initdb before 10.0, we should go back and
> > >> clean this up.
> >
> > > +1 for immediately forcing initdb for this, getting it out of the
> way.  We're
> > > already unlikely to reach 10.0 without bumping catversion, but if we
> otherwise
> > > did, releasing 10.0 with a 10beta1 catversion would have negative
> value.
> >
> > I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix
> > if there's consensus for your position.  Anybody else have an opinion?
>
> I tend to agree with Noah on this one.
>
>
>
+1


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>