Re: pageinspect's infomask and infomask2 as smallint

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't see any reason that the old version of the function couldn't be
>> dropped in the upgrade script. �It's not likely anything would be
>> depending on it, is it?

> I don't see much point in taking the risk.

What risk?  And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
that should work for at least 99% of users.  AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".
        regards, tom lane