On 2017/05/30 11:41, Stephen Frost 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?
>
> I tend to agree with Noah on this one.
+1
Thanks,
Amit