On 03/10/2015 04:42 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Thank you for the correction.
>
> At Wed, 4 Mar 2015 01:01:48 -0600, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> wrote in <54F6ADDC.8030201@BlueTreble.com>
>> On 3/3/15 8:04 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>>> Note: The OID alias types don't sctrictly comply the transaction
>>>>> isolation rules so do not use them where exact transaction
>>>>> isolation on the values of these types has a
>>>>> significance. Likewise, since they look as simple constants to
>>>>> planner so you might get slower plans than the queries joining
>>>>> the system tables correnspond to the OID types.
>> Might I suggest:
>>
>> Note: The OID alias types do not completely follow transaction
>> isolation rules. The planner also treats them as simple constants,
>> which may result in sub-optimal planning.
> Looks far simple and enough.
> The note has been replaced with your sentence in the attached patch.
>
>
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?
cheers
andrew