Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 12:39:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> However, it seems to me that you should also drop the
>> pg_is_other_temp_schema() in system_views.sql for the definition of
>> pg_sequences. Doing that on HEAD now would be OK, but there's nothing
>> urgent to it so it may be better done once v18 opens up. Note that
>> pg_is_other_temp_schema() is only used for this sequence view, which
>> is a nice cleanup.
> IIUC this would cause other sessions' temporary sequences to appear in the
> view. Is that desirable?
I assume Michael meant to move the test into the C code, not drop
it entirely --- I agree we don't want that.
Moving it has some attraction, but pg_is_other_temp_schema() is also
used in a lot of information_schema views, so we couldn't get rid of
it without a lot of further hacking. Not sure we want to relocate
that filter responsibility in just one view.
regards, tom lane
