> > > > For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match the > others. If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered > shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch. Also, from reading > around [0], I get the idea that "shippability" might just mean that the > same object _probably_ exists on the remote server. Plus, there seems to > be very few use-cases for shipping reg* values in the first place. But > even after reading lots of threads, code, and docs, I'm still not sure I > fully grasp all the details here. > > [0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/1423433.1652722406%40sss.pgh.pa.us >
I agree with blocking it for now. The patch LGTM, all tests pass and seems to cover all the changes. Not sure if it is worth having some dump/restore tap tests for tables with regdatabase type. Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello
