On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 11:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now, if you want to argue that we should get rid of SET WITHOUT OIDS
> altogether, I'm not sure I could dispute it. But if we have the
> ability
> to do that ISTM we should offer the reverse too.
We should keep the ability to have OIDs. Some people use it, though not
many.
But the ability to turn this on/off is not an important one, since even
the people who use OIDs seldom use this. They have CTAS; let them use
it.
So I say let's drop support now for ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT OIDS and
don't bother to implement SET WITH OIDS. Less weird corners in the
software means fewer bugs.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
