Curt Sampson kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 13:34: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > We've gotten a couple of complaints now about the fact that 7.3 doesn't > > include an OID column in a table created via CREATE TABLE AS or SELECT > > INTO. Unless I hear objections, I'm going to revert it to including an > > OID, and back-patch the fix for 7.3.2 as well. > > I object. I personally think we should be moving towards not using OIDs > as the default behaviour, inasmuch as we can, for several reasons:
I re-object > 1. It's not a relational concept. so are other system tuples (cid, tid, tableiod, ...). It is an OO concept. > 2. The OID wraparound problem can get you. put an unique index on OID column. > 3. Other SQL databases don't do this. Ask Date, hell tell you that SQL is evil, i.e. not relational ;) > 4. It's hidden, rather than exposed, and hidden things are generally a > bad idea. AFAIK carrying hidden weapons is forbidden in most of USA, in Europe you usually are forbidden to carry hand-weapons _exposed_ ;) > 5. We should default to what gives us better performance, rather than > worse. Not if it breaks anything ;) > > See discussion a couple days ago on pgsql-general, starting at > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-01/msg00669.php > > There didn't seem to be many people clamouring to have it back. > > The ideal sitaution for me would be to have WITHOUT OIDS be the default > for all table creations, and but of course allow WITH OIDS for backward > compatability. But yeah, I know that this can introduce problems with > old dumps, and may not be entirely easy to implement. If you need a no-OID table, and INSERT INTO it. > cjs -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
