Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> [ on creation timestamps ]
> I know this has been discussed and rejected before, but I find that
> rejection to be wrong-headed. I have repeatedly been asked, with
> levels of exasperation ranging from mild to homicidal, why we don't
> have this feature, and I have no good answer. If it were somehow
> difficult to record this or likely to produce a lot of overhead, that
> would be one thing. But it isn't. It's probably a hundred-line
> patch, and AFAICS the overhead would be miniscule.
If I believed that it would be a hundred-line patch, and would *stay*
a hundred-line patch, I'd be fine with it. But it won't. I will
bet a very fine dinner that the feature wouldn't get out the door
before there would be demands for pg_dump support. And arguments
about whether ALTER should or should not change the timestamp.
And I doubt you counted psql \d support in that hundred lines.
So this is just a can of worms that I'd rather not open.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
