Re: safe to overload objectSubId for a type?

On 09/02/19 11:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, apparently we already do handle that in some way, because
> this works:
> ...
> Nonetheless, I'd be pretty hesitant to allow somebody to use
> objsubid with some entirely different meaning for types.

As long as it stays an internal detail of a caching scheme used by me
and will be masked back to 0 before anything escapes to elsewhere, so it
really only exploits the current fact that objSubId for types carries
no information at all ... and no one seems to be chiming in with a pressing
case for changing that ... I think I can get away with the simple scheme,
admitting the possibility of having to revisit it down the road.

Regards,
-Chap