Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Uh, why worry?  If you had an application that depended in any way
>> shape or form on the SET type, then I already broke it ...

> Wasn't it a pg_upgrade consideration or something?

No, I thought the discussion was about whether client code could get
away with hard-coding OID values for popular types.  ISTM it's
sufficient to promise that a type's OID won't change while the type
exists.  If we remove a type that your client depends on, you've got
worse problems than what the OID is.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type at 2004-06-07 05:48:53 from Christopher Kings-Lynne

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2004-06-07 13:36:59
	Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type
Previous:	From: Christopher Kings-Lynne	Date: 2004-06-07 05:48:53
	Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type