> 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.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
