Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I believe, however, that applying this will invalidate the contents of
> >> any hash indexes on array types that anyone has built using 9.1beta1.
> >> Do we need to do something about that?
> >
> > Like bumping catversion?
>
> Sure. Although note that the system catalogs are not actually
> changing, which goes to someone else's recent point about catversion
> getting bumped for things other than changes in the things for which
> the "cat" in "catversion" is an abbreviation.
>
> > I would probably complain about that, except you already did it post-beta1:
> > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=9bb6d9795253bb521f81c626fea49a704a369ca9
>
> Unfortunately, I was unable to make that omelet without breaking some eggs. :-(
>
> > Possibly Bruce will feel like adding a check to pg_upgrade for the case.
> > I wouldn't bother myself though. ?It seems quite unlikely that anyone's
> > depending on the feature yet.
>
> I'll leave that to you, Bruce, and whoever else wants to weigh in to
> hammer that one out.
Oh, you are worried someone might have stored hash indexes with the old
catalog format? Seems like something we might mention in the next beta
release announcement, but nothing more.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
