Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Joshua D. Drake
Тема Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?
Дата
Msg-id 1285107921.15919.123.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 18:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > On 9/20/10 10:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Backwards-compatibility? ;-) There hasn't been any pressing reason to
> >> remove it.
>
> > Any application which needed it (like OpenACS) just got broken when we
> > removed add_missing_from.  Let alone the typecasting changes in 8.3.
>
> Huh?  There's no reason to assume that those features are connected.
>
> > Personally, I find removing GUCS to be a worthwhile goal in itself.  We
> > have well over 200 now.
>
> Usually we don't remove GUCs (or other backwards-compatibility features)
> until there's some positive reason to do so.  I don't see one at the
> moment for default_with_oids.  Reducing the length of the GUC list by
> 0.5% doesn't seem like an adequate reason for possibly breaking old apps.
>
> Mind you, it wouldn't take a *big* reason to persuade me to remove it.
> But bigger than that.

The uninformed still use OIDs. They shouldn't.

Joshua D. Drake

>
>             regards, tom lane
>

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?