Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> OK, updated version of the patch attached and applied.
> I still object to this. What is wrong with using the catalog version
> number?
It's partially redundant, but only partially, and I agree that it'll
probably be easier for people to use than the catversion number.
The case where it's not redundant would be if an add-on needs to deal
with an internal API change made in a sub-release, e.g. 8.1.4, where
the catversion number is not going to change. We've certainly done that
before and will do so again, when there's no other way to fix a bug.
regards, tom lane
