Re: Scan by TID (was RE: [HACKERS] How to add a new build-in operator)

> Bernard Frankpitt <frankpit(at)pop(dot)dn(dot)net> writes:
> > With all due respect to people who I am sure know a lot more about this
> > than I do, it seems to me that extensive use of TIDs in user code might
> > place an unwelcome restraint on the internal database design.
>
> Yes, we'd certainly have to label it as an implementation-dependent
> feature that might change or vanish in the future. But as long as
> people understand that they are tying themselves to a particular
> implementation, I can see the usefulness of making this feature
> accessible. I'm still dubious that it's actually worth the work ...
> but as long as I'm not the one doing the work, I can hardly object ;-).
>
> I just want to be sure that we don't create a maintenance headache
> for ourselves by corrupting the system structure. We've spent a
> lot of time cleaning up after past shortcuts, and still have many
> more to deal with; introducing new ones doesn't seem good.

Agreed.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026