Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 01:07:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> 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
