On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any
>> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of
>> standard_conforming_strings,
>
> Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute
> (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest
> exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE.
Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about
a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID,
which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users
probably shouldn't get too attached to. But now I see that you're
talking about something much more basic - the fundamental
implementation of UPDATE and DELETE relies on the TID not changing
under them. That pretty much kills this idea dead in the water.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
