| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: fix SET WITHOUT OIDS, add SET WITH OIDS |
| Date: | 2009-02-10 10:59:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1234263582.4500.821.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 11:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, if you want to argue that we should get rid of SET WITHOUT OIDS
> altogether, I'm not sure I could dispute it. But if we have the
> ability
> to do that ISTM we should offer the reverse too.
We should keep the ability to have OIDs. Some people use it, though not
many.
But the ability to turn this on/off is not an important one, since even
the people who use OIDs seldom use this. They have CTAS; let them use
it.
So I say let's drop support now for ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT OIDS and
don't bother to implement SET WITH OIDS. Less weird corners in the
software means fewer bugs.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-02-10 12:08:27 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL and row level security |
| Previous Message | BogDan Vatra | 2009-02-10 10:03:02 | SE-PostgreSQL and row level security |