Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's partially redundant, but only partially, and I agree that it'll
>> probably be easier for people to use than the catversion number.
> Also, that macro block where Joe Conway compared catalog version numbers
> and defined understandable macro names cried out for a solution.
It's worth pointing out here that catversion was only intended to be
useful within a development cycle, ie, to prevent developers from
wasting time chasing pseudo-bugs that were really due to mismatch of
their newly compiled backend executable with not-so-new system catalog
contents. We never intended any code to depend on its specific value,
else we'd have used a definition with more mnemonic content than a
date-stamp.
regards, tom lane
