Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes:
> Here is no other reason than what Alvaro mentioned in the upthread.
> We intended to store security label of SELinux (less than 100bytes at most),
> so I didn't think it leads any problem actually.
> On the other hands, pg_seclabel was merged in another development cycle.
> We didn't have deep discussion about necessity of toast table of pg_seclabel.
> I added its toast table mechanically.
So maybe we should get rid of the toast table for pg_seclabel. One less
catalog table for a feature that hardly anyone is using seems like a fine
idea to me ...
regards, tom lane
