Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> writes: > Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread. > We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most), > so I didn't think it leads any problem actually.
> On the other hands, pg_seclabel was merged in another development cycle. > We didn't have deep discussion about necessity of toast table of pg_seclabel. > I added its toast table mechanically. So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for pg_seclabel. One less catalog table for a feature that hardly anyone is using seems like a fine idea to me ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers