From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: fix SET WITHOUT OIDS, add SET WITH OIDS |
Date: | 2009-02-09 15:49:32 |
Message-ID: | e51f66da0902090749o3f8b3ea7gfcdbde81ca1a6c55@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/9/09, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > But now that I learned that ALTER TABLE WITHOUT OIDS either causes bugs
> > or requires table rewrite, it turned from minor annoyance to big
> annoyance.
> > So I'd like have a reasonable path for getting rid of them, which we don't
> > have currently. Removing them completely is simplest path, but adding
> > extra features to support it is another.
> >
> > If we are talking about adding a feature, then I like retargeting
> > pg_dump --oids from data-only flag to apply to both data and schema.
> > Yes, this is incompatible change, but the change affects feature we
> > are discouraging anyway.
>
> How about a pg_dump flag that simply suppresses OIDs from the data and
> schema?
But we already have flag that is correlated to use of oids?
I don't see why we should bother users who are not using oids with it.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-02-09 15:49:58 | Re: WIP: fix SET WITHOUT OIDS, add SET WITH OIDS |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-02-09 15:44:17 | Re: WIP: fix SET WITHOUT OIDS, add SET WITH OIDS |