On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:38 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's more like a lot number or surveying tract than an postal address. > Useful for a single party, the builder or the government, but not something > you give out to other people so they can find you. > > Whether or not we copy over oids should be done based upon our internal > needs, not end users. Which is why the fee that do get copied exists, > because we store them in internal files that we want to copy as part of the > upgrade. It also isn't like pg_dump/restore is going to retain them and the > less divergence between that and pg_upgrade arguably the better.
We build the product for the end users. Their desires and needs are relevant. And if they're telling us we did it wrong, we need to listen to that. We don't have to do everything that everybody wants, but treating developer needs as strictly more important than end-user needs is self-defeating. I agree that there's a trade-off here. Preserving more OIDs requires more code and makes pg_dump and other things more complicated, which is not great. But, at least to me, arguing that there are no downsides of not preserving these OIDs is simply not a believable argument. Well, maybe somebody believes it. But I don't. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
