On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 11:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Now, if you want to argue that we should get rid of SET WITHOUT OIDS > altogether, I'm not sure I could dispute it. But if we have the > ability > to do that ISTM we should offer the reverse too.
We should keep the ability to have OIDs. Some people use it, though not many. But the ability to turn this on/off is not an important one, since even the people who use OIDs seldom use this. They have CTAS; let them use it. So I say let's drop support now for ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT OIDS and don't bother to implement SET WITH OIDS. Less weird corners in the software means fewer bugs. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
