Re: regdatabase

>
> For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match the
> others.  If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered
> shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch.  Also, from reading
> around [0], I get the idea that "shippability" might just mean that the
> same object _probably_ exists on the remote server.  Plus, there seems to
> be very few use-cases for shipping reg* values in the first place.  But
> even after reading lots of threads, code, and docs, I'm still not sure I
> fully grasp all the details here.
>
> [0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/1423433.1652722406%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>

I agree with blocking it for now. The patch LGTM, all tests pass and seems to cover all the changes.

Not sure if it is worth having some dump/restore tap tests for tables with regdatabase type.