Re: pg_class.relistemp

David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> I'm wondering if it would be possible to restore the relistemp column
> >> to pg_class, at least for backwards compatibility, so that apps that
> >> expected it can continue to work on both 9.0 and 9.1. Even if it's
> >> read-only somehow, and the same as `relpersistence <> 't'`.
> >
> > Uh, that is going to require an initdb, and it is unlinkely we are going
> > to need that this far into 9.1 beta.
>
> I was afraid of that.
>
> > Also, we don't normally keep
> > system table columns around for backward compatibility because of the
> > confusion it can cause, e.g. which column do I look at?
>
> The one that's documented.

Well, that assumes people read the documention and don't just do \d.
Keeping cruft around over time makes the system more complex.

> Wasn't newsysviews supposed to deal with these sorts of issues? Why
> were they rejected?

No idea.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +