On 07/25/2016 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> You missed the "compelling argument why it's needed" part. What is the
>>> need for this?
>
>> It's self-evident that this thread wouldn't exist if it were not the
>> case that people had queries that no longer work because of these new
>> changes. You can hold your breath and pretend that every single one
>> of those queries is probably misdesigned, but I do not think anyone
>> else will find that argument convincing.
>
> We've already broken existing queries against pg_am, simply because the
> columns are not there anymore; and that decision is not getting undone
> at this point. I'm willing to consider putting back some substitute
> capability, but I'd like to see as much evidence for adding that as we'd
> expect for any other new feature. Andrew still hasn't shown a concrete
> example of what he needs to do and why.
I think that Andrew and other people who have commented on this thread
made it pretty obvious why it is useful.
JD
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.