| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: default to WITHOUT OIDS? |
| Date: | 2003-01-12 16:20:38 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301112007330.29178-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway writes:
> > On the other hand, if we do do that then (a) pg_dump output
> > becomes even less portable than it is now, and (b) upgraded databases
> > will still have OIDs, which renders the "improved storage efficiency"
> > argument a bit thin.
> Personally, I don't think (a) is that important (if it *is* important,
> we're doing pretty poorly in that regard right now).
It is important, and if you write your database in a portable fashion then
it does a pretty good job at it. Some effort was put into 7.3 to make it
so, and I would hate to abandon it.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-12 16:28:09 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-01-12 16:12:19 | Re: MOVE LAST: why? |