Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values, round two

On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 01:58:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I think 0002 and 0003 are purely mechanical; they look good to me and
> > can go in first.
>
> Thanks. 0002 and 0003 are kind of independent on the rest, not
> requiring any Oid8 idea, so I'll go apply them.

0002 has been applied as of 2b3d11aaed89. 0003 does a bunch of
renames and in order to raise a bit more awareness and not get
screamed at after-the-fact, I have posted that on a different thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/apoD1Ulet2PtDrRV@paquier.xyz

The first feedbacks I had we OK, so I don't expect any pushback, just
being careful and we still have time.

After an extra set of checks, I am dropping the catcache thing for
OID8OID, for the simple reason that there is no need for it anymore.
I am pretty sure that I did some OID8 catalog lookup at some point of
this patch set, but nothing shows up now. Perhaps that was in the
round 1 of the discussion.

I'll post a rebase of the remaining pieces once the rename thread is
completely settled, hopefully around the beginning of next week.
--
Michael