Re: Restore relhaspkey in PostgreSQL Version 11 Beta - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Adrian Klaver
Subject Re: Restore relhaspkey in PostgreSQL Version 11 Beta
Date
Msg-id bc748bf2-f71b-f6b8-16f4-1b25de65440d@aklaver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Restore relhaspkey in PostgreSQL Version 11 Beta  (Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 07/31/2018 07:47 AM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> 
>     [2]
>     https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140317185255.20724.49675%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
>     <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140317185255.20724.49675%40wrigleys.postgresql.org>
> 
>     -- 
>       David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>       PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> 
> 
>  > 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140317185255.20724.49675%40wrigleys.postgresql.org 
> <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140317185255.20724.49675%40wrigleys.postgresql.org> 
> 
> 
> *Wow, so BUG #9606 has been known since 2014-03-17, but no one has 
> bothered to fix it?
> As I've said before, instead of fixing the problem, the resolution seems 
> to be to
> "make it go away". I've seen that logic echoed in other situations 
> outside of the
> IT environment.
> The fact remains, my code works (or worked) because I was only 
> interested in finding
> tables that were newly created without a primary key. While I 
> acknowledge that bug, the
> situation where the primary key is dropped is extremely rare and would 
> only happen
> in the rare case where the primary key needed to be altered or replaced 
> by another
> key, in which case the problem is moot. Since PostgreSQL is a relational 
> database,
> I cannot think of a situation where a DBA would allow the primary key to 
> just be
> dropped/removed altogether.
> I was hoping that at least one other person would see my point of view, 
> but by the
> harsh replies I've been getting, I feel more like a whistle blower that 
> insiders
> think I also should be made to "go away".

That is not the case. You may not like the explanations that where 
provided, that is your right, but the decision has been made. 
Alternatives where provided so there is a migration path. People are 
just questioning why you are getting so worked up over what is a 
relatively minor change. This is nowhere near a disruptive change as say 
the implicit cast changes in 8.3. I for one do not want you to 'go away'.

> Well, you are right. This old Viet Vet shall now end this conversation 
> and his career.
> I just need a way to do so quietly and painlessly.
> The truth is absolute and cannot be changed.
> Perception is not the truth.
> Flerp!*
> *
> *
> **--
> *Melvin Davidson**
> Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist**
> Universe Exploration Command – UXC***
> Employment by invitation only!


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: alter table docs
Next
From: George Neuner
Date:
Subject: Re: Question on postgresql.conf