On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 11/2/17 16:54, Nico Williams wrote: > > Replacing condeferred and condeferrable with a char columns also > > occurred to me, and though I assume backwards-incompatible changes to > > pg_catalog tables are fair game, I assumed everyone would prefer > > avoiding such changes where possible. > > I don't think there is an overriding mandate to avoid such catalog > changes. Consider old clients that don't know about your new column. > They might look at the catalog entries and derive information about a > constraint, not being aware that there is additional information in > another column that overrides that. So in such cases it's arguably > better to make a break.
Makes sense. > (In any case, it might be worth waiting for a review of the rest of the > patch before taking on a significant rewrite of the catalog structures.) I'll wait then :) When you're done with that I'll make this change (replacing those three bool columns with a single char column). > > Hmmm, must I do anything special about _downgrades_? Does PostgreSQL > > support downgrades? > > no Oh good. Thanks for clarifying that. Nico -- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers