On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
small aside: tid usage is the best method for kludging a delete/limit:
delete from del where ctid = any (array(select ctid from del limit
10)); (via http://postgres.cz/wiki/PostgreSQL_SQL_Tricks)
merlin
