2026年7月17日(金) 15:49 Ian Lawrence Barwick <[email protected]>: > > 2026年7月17日(金) 7:51 Michael Paquier <[email protected]>: > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 08:00:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > That's what I call a historical artifact. Removing it looks to be > > > simply a cleanup of pg_proc.dat. Will do so if there are no > > > objections, freeing an OID is not a bad thing here. > > > > And done this part. > > > > > Documenting it would not hurt, yes. We use it a lot in the regression > > > tests, perhaps some extensions would gain some portability ideas if we > > > publish a few words about it. > > > > For this part, if somebody has a patch, feel free. > > I was feeling free, but the more I looked at it, the more horribly > inconsistent and ugly > "getdatabaseencoding()" is as a public SQL function name, and we have > "pg_client_encoding()" already, so might as well rename it? > > Patch in separate thread: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB8KJ%3DiQQ3j1ZzJkgF_CGF5TvJsugp6JFOrS-LB7kT%3DXivV_Vg%40mail.gmail.com
The idea was not popular, so I submitted a plain documentation patch: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/7029/ Regards Ian Barwick
