On Thu, 2023-03-02 at 09:13 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I'd like to open up this discussion again so that we can
> move forward. I prefer the GUC as it is relatively simple and as
> Peter mentioned it works, but I'm not married to the idea.
It's not very friendly to extensions, where the types are not
guaranteed to have stable OIDs. Did you consider any proposals that
work with type names?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
