On 07/25/2016 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
You missed the "compelling argument why it's needed" part. What is the
need for this?
It's self-evident that this thread wouldn't exist if it were not the
case that people had queries that no longer work because of these new
changes. You can hold your breath and pretend that every single one
of those queries is probably misdesigned, but I do not think anyone
else will find that argument convincing.
We've already broken existing queries against pg_am, simply because the
columns are not there anymore; and that decision is not getting undone
at this point. I'm willing to consider putting back some substitute
capability, but I'd like to see as much evidence for adding that as we'd
expect for any other new feature. Andrew still hasn't shown a concrete
example of what he needs to do and why.
I think that Andrew and other people who have commented on this thread
made it pretty obvious why it is useful.
JD
regards, tom lane
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
