> -----Original Message-----
>
> > Bernard Frankpitt <frankpit@pop.dn.net> writes:
> > > With all due respect to people who I am sure know a lot more
> about this
> > > than I do, it seems to me that extensive use of TIDs in user
> code might
> > > place an unwelcome restraint on the internal database design.
> >
> > Yes, we'd certainly have to label it as an implementation-dependent
> > feature that might change or vanish in the future. But as long as
> > people understand that they are tying themselves to a particular
> > implementation, I can see the usefulness of making this feature
> > accessible. I'm still dubious that it's actually worth the work ...
> > but as long as I'm not the one doing the work, I can hardly object ;-).
> >
> > I just want to be sure that we don't create a maintenance headache
> > for ourselves by corrupting the system structure. We've spent a
> > lot of time cleaning up after past shortcuts, and still have many
> > more to deal with; introducing new ones doesn't seem good.
>
> Agreed.
>
I think it isn't so difficult to implement a new type of scan
on trial. But I'm not sure my story is right and I'm afraid
to invite a maintenance headache like intersexcept ....
May I proceed the work ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
