Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1srVPV-002Bx6-Bf for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:38:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1srVPS-00EsRa-WA for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:38:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1srVPS-00EsRS-M3 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:38:24 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1srVPR-0007GO-Fr for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:38:22 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48K4cGxs2358227; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:38:16 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Junwang Zhao , jian he , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: attndims, typndims still not enforced, but make the value within a sane threshold In-reply-to: References: <1807434.1726668657@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Fri, 20 Sep 2024 13:30:46 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2358225.1726807096.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:38:16 -0400 Message-ID: <2358226.1726807096@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:51:49AM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote: >> Should you also bump the catalog version? > No need to worry about that when sending a patch because committers > take care of that when merging a patch into the tree. Doing that in > each patch submitted just creates more conflicts and work for patch > authors because they'd need to recolve conflicts each time a > catversion bump happens. And that can happen on a daily basis > sometimes depending on what is committed. Right. Sometimes the committer forgets to do that :-(, which is not great but it's not normally a big problem either. We've concluded it's better to err in that direction than impose additional work on patch submitters. If you feel concerned about the point, best practice is to include a mention that catversion bump is needed in your draft commit message. regards, tom lane