RE: Support logical replication of DDLs

On Friday, March 31, 2023 6:31 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

> 
> It seems that lately, the patch attachments are lacking version numbers. It
> causes unnecessary confusion. For example, I sometimes fetch patches from
> this thread locally to "diff" them with previous patches to get a rough overview
> of the changes -- that has now become more difficult.
> 
> Can you please reinstate the name convention of having version numbers for all
> patch attachments?
> 
> IMO *every* post that includes patches should unconditionally increment the
> patch version -- even if the new patches are just a rebase or some other trivial
> change. Version numbers make it clear what patches are the latest, you will be
> easily able to unambiguously refer to them by name in subsequent posts, and
> when copied to your local computer they won't clash with any older copied
> patches.

The patch currently use date as the version number. I think the reason is that
multiple people are working on the patch which cause the version numbers to be
changed very frequently(soon becomes a very large number). So to avoid this
, we used the date to distinguish different versions.

Best Regards,
Hou zj