On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > It's perhaps debatable whether it should act that way, but in the absence > of complaints from the field, I'm hesitant to change these cases. It > might be better if the effective behavior were "table gets OIDs if > default_with_oids = true or WITH OIDS is given or base table has OIDs".
+1 > > Still another case that needs to be thought about is "create table likeit > (like base) without oids" where base does have OIDs. Probably the right > thing here is to let the WITHOUT OIDS spec override what we see in base. > > Why are oids special in this manner? No other inherited column can be omitted from the child table. Though I guess unlike inherits there is no reason to mandate the final result be identical to the base table - though here is something to be said for pointing out the inconsistency and requiring the user to alter table if indeed they want to have the oid-ness changed. David J.
