Re: WIP: fix SET WITHOUT OIDS, add SET WITH OIDS

Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 2/9/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We've had SET WITHOUT OIDS since 7.3 or thereabouts. Anybody who hasn't
>> applied it in all that time either does not care, or actually needs the
>> OIDs and will be unhappy if we arbitrarily remove the feature.

> Sure I did not care. Because I thought I can get rid of them
> anytime I wanted. But it seems it's not the case...

Sure, you can still get rid of them, because SET WITHOUT OIDS isn't
going away. It will be a bit more expensive than it used to be, but
if you've not applied it before migrating to 8.4, that very strongly
suggests that you don't care about getting rid of oids anyhow.

The other half of this thread seems to be pointed in the direction
of *forcing* users to get rid of oids, which is not happening as far
as I'm concerned. It'd be breaking stuff to no purpose. I've been
known to vote for breaking apps when there was a purpose to it
(eg tightening implicit coercions) but removing the ability to have
oids in user tables wouldn't buy us anything meaningful.

regards, tom lane