| From: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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: | 2009-02-11 16:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | BCB8D4DC-4255-4168-A94C-C9D07403B94B@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Well for one thing because they don't scale well to billions of
records. For another they're even less like the standard or anything
any other database has.
I agree with you that there's no reason to actively deprecate OIDs or
hurt users who use them. But we should make it as easy as possible for
users who want to move to a normal primary key, not put obstacles in
their way like large full table rewrites.
--
Greg
On 10 Feb 2009, at 01:49, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I think what you propose would be a mistake. We want to encourage
>> people to move *away* from OIDS.
>
> Why? I don't agree with that premise, and therefore not with any
> of the rest of your argument.
>
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-11 17:05:36 | Re: WIP: hooking parser |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-02-11 16:54:39 | Re: WIP: hooking parser |