Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on newnode types added by partitioning supp

* 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.

Thanks!

Stephen