On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:22:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm content with the status quo personally, but perhaps it'd be > worth adding some info to the comment for the bitsNN typedefs > to make it clearer what they are intended for. I'm imagining > something along the lines of
Not sure why we absolutely need to be aggressive with a removal here, so I'm +/-0 on that. And there is always the argument of breaking the compilation of out-of-core code. That would be easily fixable, still always slightly annoying. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
