Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 18:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The GUC route sounds good. I'd like to see ctid handling beefed up at the
>> same time. For example, some operators such as != would be nice and might
>> ease the pain a little for people used to us
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 18:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to me that this really buys much. What we really want
>> is a way for a dump/reload to remove OIDs from tables that formerly had
>> them; otherwise people will not easily be able to migrate th
> It doesn't seem to me that this really buys much. What we really want
> is a way for a dump/reload to remove OIDs from tables that formerly had
> them; otherwise people will not easily be able to migrate their existing
> tables away from having OIDs.
Doesn't ALTER TABLE ... SET WITHOUT OIDS all
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 18:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The GUC route sounds good. I'd like to see ctid handling beefed up at the
> same time. For example, some operators such as != would be nice and might
> ease the pain a little for people used to using oids as their "tuple id" :)
Are we encou
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 18:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> It doesn't seem to me that this really buys much. What we really want
> is a way for a dump/reload to remove OIDs from tables that formerly had
> them; otherwise people will not easily be able to migrate their existing
> tables away from having OIDs.
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (1) Add a GUC var, with a name such as "default_use_oids", defaulting to
> true. This controls whether a CREATE TABLE that doesn't include WITH or
> WITHOUT OIDS gets created with OIDs.
This I think was pretty noncontroversial.
> (2) When dumping a table,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I think most people on this list will agree that having OIDs on user
> tables is a Bad Thing. For some previous discussion of why, see:
> ...
> Objections, comments, etc. are welcome.
The GUC route sounds good. I'd like to see ctid handling beefed
I think most people on this list will agree that having OIDs on user
tables is a Bad Thing. For some previous discussion of why, see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg27374.html
My understanding of the conclusion of previous discussions on this topic
is that getting rid of OIDs on
