On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any >> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of >> standard_conforming_strings, > > Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute > (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest > exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE.
Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID, which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users probably shouldn't get too attached to. But now I see that you're talking about something much more basic - the fundamental implementation of UPDATE and DELETE relies on the TID not changing under them. That pretty much kills this idea dead in the water. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
