Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Subject: Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs
Date: 2004-03-24 03:30:17
Message-ID: 10081.1080099017@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> I am currently testing a fix that allows you to say
>> ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN oid;
>> which will behave the same way a regular user-column DROP would.

> Will it handle this case:
> usa=# create table testy (a int4) without oids;
> usa=# alter table testy add oid int4;

No. This is DROP not ADD.

> How about the syntax:
> ALTER TABLE t DROP OIDS;

Why? We already have one nonstandard-and-redundant syntax for this,
we surely do not need another.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-24 03:31:30 Re: linked list rewrite
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-24 03:27:57 Re: dollar quoting and pg_dump