From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: remove WITHOUT OIDS syntax for v19 |
Date: | 2025-07-16 00:06:44 |
Message-ID: | CAEG8a3Lb2_aMg_ywrCz4=3C2=CUmNN43YVRB4xiWZ5WJVMQXxw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 11:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > WITH OIDS was removed in v12, I'm wondering if we could remove the
> > WITHOUT OIDS support for v19.
>
> Why?
Sorry I didn't mention the reason why I think WITHOUT OIDS should be removed.
WITHOUT OIDS has been a backward-compatible syntax for 6 years, so I
think maybe not too many users use it nowadays. Besides, there are
some hints in the code base that `WITHOUT OIDS` and `with (oids =
false)` will be removed someday(see the following diff), so I wonder
which day should it be?
-/* WITHOUT OIDS is legacy only */
OptWith:
WITH reloptions { $$ = $2; }
- | WITHOUT OIDS { $$ = NIL; }
| /*EMPTY*/
- /*
- * This is not a great place for this test,
but there's no other
- * convenient place to filter the option out.
As WITH (oids =
- * false) will be removed someday, this seems
like an acceptable
- * amount of ugly.
- */
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-07-16 00:08:07 | IndexAmRoutine aminsertcleanup function can be NULL? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-07-16 00:01:57 | Re: patch: Use pg_assume in jsonb_util.c to fix GCC 15 warnings |