On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:20:41AM +0000, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Annotate the fact that somebody added location fields to PartitionBoundSpec > >> and PartitionRangeDatum but forgot to handle them in > >> outfuncs.c/readfuncs.c. This is fairly harmless for production purposes > >> (since readfuncs.c would just substitute -1 anyway) but it's still bogus. > >> It's not worth forcing a post-beta1 initdb just to fix this, but if we > >> have another reason to force initdb before 10.0, we should go back and > >> clean this up. > > > +1 for immediately forcing initdb for this, getting it out of the way. We're > > already unlikely to reach 10.0 without bumping catversion, but if we otherwise > > did, releasing 10.0 with a 10beta1 catversion would have negative value. > > I'm not really for doing it that way, but I'm willing to apply the fix > if there's consensus for your position. Anybody else have an opinion?
