| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2010-09-22 06:24:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1285136695.15691.9.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2010-09-21 at 18:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Also, doesn't some SQL standard require oids, so we should have a way
> to enable them by default for all tables?
From some DB2 example:
CREATE TYPE BusinessUnit_t AS
(Name VARCHAR(20),
Headcount INT);
CREATE TABLE BusinessUnit OF BusinessUnit_t
(REF IS oid USER GENERATED);
The DB2 documentation consistently refers to this column as "oid", but
there is no requirement to name it that way.
The SQL standard also contains this sentence:
Let OID be the name of the self-referencing column of S.
which refers to the thing defined in the example above, but "OID" is
just a placeholder here.
I think there was a mention of OIDs in the "SQL3" draft that eventually
became SQL99, but that's long past now. Current standards don't have
it, except in the, perhaps more generalized, form above.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2010-09-22 07:29:55 | knngist patch preliminary review (2010-09 commitfest) |
| Previous Message | Elvis Pranskevichus | 2010-09-22 05:50:07 | Re: Multi-branch committing in git, revisited |