Hi, +1 for getting rid of whatever we can without too much trouble.
On 2020-11-21 13:13:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > > Indeed, this could go. There is a recursive call for views, but in > > order to maintain compatibility with that we can just remove one > > function and move the second to use a regclass as argument, like the > > attached, while removing setLastTid(). Any thoughts? > > Considering that we're preserving this only for backwards compatibility, > I doubt that changing the signature is a good idea. It maybe risks > breaking something, and the ODBC driver is hardly going to notice > any improved ease-of-use. +1. Regards, Andres
