From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>,
        John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Set the volatility of the timestamptz version of
 date_bin() back
In-reply-to: <202109031756.d6li4szj5zje@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202109031756.d6li4szj5zje@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Fri, 03 Sep 2021 13:56:50 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2598497.1630702074.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:47:54 -0400
Message-ID: <2598498.1630702074@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2598498.1630702074%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Sep-03, John Naylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
>> wrote:
>>> These catversion bumps in branch 14 this late in the cycle seem suspect.
>>> Didn't we have some hesitation to push multirange unnest around beta2
>>> precisely because of a desire to avoid catversion bumps?

>> This was for correcting a mistake (although the first commit turned out to
>> be a mistake itself), so I understood it to be necessary.

> A crazy idea might have been to return to the original value.

Yes, that is what should have been done, as I complained over
in pgsql-committers before seeing this exchange.  As things
stand, a pg_upgrade is going to be forced on beta3 users
without even the excuse of fixing a bug.

			regards, tom lane