On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:28:22PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any > >> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of > >> standard_conforming_strings, > > > > Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute > > (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest > > exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE. > > Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about > a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID, > which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users > probably shouldn't get too attached to. But now I see that you're > talking about something much more basic - the fundamental > implementation of UPDATE and DELETE relies on the TID not changing > under them. That pretty much kills this idea dead in the water.
Should this information be added to src/backend/access/heap/README.HOT? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
