| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there? |
| Date: | 2010-09-21 22:16:23 |
| Message-ID: | 10595.1285107383@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> On 9/20/10 10:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Backwards-compatibility? ;-) There hasn't been any pressing reason to
>>> remove it.
> Mind you, it wouldn't take a *big* reason to persuade me to remove it.
> But bigger than that.
Actually, I can think of a fairly sizable reason not to remove it:
pg_dump issues "SET default_with_oids" commands in its scripts, and
has done for lo these many years. So you'd be breaking backwards
compatibility with even-quite-recent dumps.
It'd be possible to work around that; for example, if you don't use
--single-transaction to restore the dump then you could just ignore
the errors. But it still is not something to just lightly break.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-09-21 22:25:21 | Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-21 22:10:22 | Re: repository size differences |