Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 01:07:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> writes: >>> With Melanie's note, there are at least 4 votes in favor of this patch >>> (Andres, me, Peter, and Melanie). AFAICT Michael is +/-0, Álvaro and Tom >>> are -1 (or somewhere in the vicinity), and Robert seems ambivalent. Hm... >> >> To clarify, what I said was we should either remove them or use them >> more consistently. I don't think 1bd6f22f4 moved the needle very >> far towards option 2, so I'm totally fine with option 1. Put me >> down as +0.5. > > Thanks for clarifying. Given that update and Álvaro's note upthread [0], > I'd argue we're in rough consensus territory and can move forward with the > patch. If no objections materialize shortly, I'll do so.
To avoid breaking extensions, we could leave the typedefs in place with an #ifndef guard on some symbol that's only defined when building postgres itself, but not when building extensions (or vice versa with an #ifdef instead). This is used a lot in Perl for things we don't want to use in core any more, but we don't want to break CPAN modules still using. - ilmari
