I wrote:
> I'm inclined to change this in HEAD but leave it alone in the back
> branches. While it seems pretty bogus, it's not clear if anyone
> out there could be relying on the current behavior.
I've pushed both the 0001 v2 patch and the event trigger change,
and am going to mark the CF entry closed, because leaving it open
would confuse the cfbot. I think there may still be room to do
something about pg_temp_NNN output in psql's \d commands as 0002
attempted to, but I don't have immediate ideas about how to do
that in a safe/clean way.
regards, tom lane
