From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids |
Date: | 2018-10-28 05:55:01 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jg4PTqejfvVOSuK7RKk0nCdAtsyTT7eKpgB70B+37x6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:26 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-10-28 00:21:23 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:18 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > I think we should drop WITH OIDs support. pg_dump should convert WITH
> > > OIDs tables into tables that have an explicit oid column (with an
> > > appropriate default function), pg_upgrade should refuse to upgrade them.
> > >
> >
> > Is there any technical reason why you think pg_upgrade should refuse
> > to upgrade them? I think there is an argument to break backward
> > compatibility here and many people on the thread seem to be okay with
> > that, but refusing to upgrade sounds more restrictive.
>
> They'd not be on-disk compatible, because the column isn't stored as a
> normal column but in the t_hoff space.
>
Yeah, and which means we need to re-write all such tables which is not
an attractive option and probably quite some work. So, users have to
dump and restore their databases which can be time-consuming for large
databases, but I think we don't have any better option to offer.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-10-28 06:54:53 | Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-10-28 02:27:11 | Re: Comment fix and question about dshash.c |