Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> I don't really mind catversion bumps during the beta period in general,
> I'm in the camp that if there's a change that would make the release
> better and it's not particularly risky, it's better to still sneak it in.
> I feel I might be in the minority with that view though. Historically,
> we've avoided fixes that need catversion bumps late in the beta period,
> so that beta-testers don't need to pg_upgrade. I think that's a poor
> tradeoff, but if we're changing long-standing policy, the RMT probably
> isn't the right group for that. So, how do others feel?
IMO, we've avoided it, but that's not a blanket policy against it.
Making beta testers exercise pg_upgrade isn't without benefit.
IIUC, the issue here is that we think these new-in-v19 functions are
suboptimally named, and if we don't change the names now then we're
stuck with them. So I'm okay with a post-beta4 catversion bump
to do that.
regards, tom lane
