Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable
Date
Msg-id 1967929.1630438698@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: mark the timestamptz variant of date_bin() as stable  (Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 3:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, you need to bump catversion.

> Done, thanks for confirming.

For future reference --- I think it's potentially confusing to use
the same catversion number in different branches, except for the
short time after a new branch where the initial catalog contents
are actually identical.  So the way I'd have done this is to use
202108311 in the back branch and 202108312 in HEAD.  It's not
terribly important, but something to note for next time.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: CFM for september commitfest
Next
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] Support pg_ident mapping for LDAP