I don't love having the schema vary like this, but I guess we have little choice, short of dropping the include altogether (introduced in #3448).

At what point do we think we can require PG>=11?

The change itself looks fine

Are you planning to add a separate PR to address the docs part? I'm a little worried about that getting lost in the shuffle since #3595 is marked as a dup

It is tricky to set up PG11+ requirement here. We can technically live with the older one. RHEL/CentOS 8 has PG10 as default and modules for PG 9.6/10/12/13m while CentOS9 has base 13 and module for 15 now. I would go ahead to PG12 which we're using now.

I would add a docs update here. What do you think? (I'm inclined to say there that we're ok with PG10, but encourages PG12 as better tested).

would add a docs update here. What do you think? (I'm inclined to say there that we're ok with PG10, but encourages PG12 as better tested).

Sure, sounds good

Commit 369d9292 fixes this pull-request