On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the emails > it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all, especially > from Tom and Robert. > > I confess I have often wanted regnamespace, particularly, and occasionally > regrole, simply as a convenience. But I'm not going to commit it against > substantial opposition. > > Do we need a vote?
Seeing this committed this wouldn't be my first choice, but I can live with it, as long as the patch is good technically. As useful as these sorts of types are, I'm not convinced that notational convenience for people steeped in backend internals is a sufficiently-good reason to clutter the system with more built-in types. But I'm probably in the minority on that; and it's clearly a judgement call anyway. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
