Re: No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel

On Fri, Jul  4, 2014 at 10:53:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ...

Is this still an open item?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +