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 <michael@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