Re: FW: Patch for current_schemas to optionally include implicit

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> >> I believe I objected to that one... we need something like it=20
> >> but Dave's first cut wasn't right.
>
> > Second cut attached. This one just adds a boolean option to the existing
> > function to indicate that implicit schemas are to be included (or not).
> > I remembered the docs as well this time :-)
>
> This looks good --- but Bruce, when you apply it don't forget to bump
> catversion.h.

Yep, thanks, got it.  Hold, do we need to bump catversion for changes
that add new functionality, or just ones that make the system broken
without it?  Would this break an existing installation?

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026