On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Antti Haapala wrote:
>For an INSERT command, the tag is INSERT oid rows, where rows
> is the number of rows inserted, and oid is the object ID of the
> inserted row if rows is 1, otherwise oid is 0.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to add here
>
> If table doe
> > Anyways, I've got an idea: what about having option that INSERTs return
> > "oid_status" in form...
>
> I don't understand exactly how an INSERT statement "returns" anything.
> An INSERT statement is not a function, is it?
I mean the backend message CompletedResponse (and
s/oid_status/PQoidSt
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Antti Haapala wrote:
> > I don't see why you need a unqiue identifier per row, nor do I see why,
> > if you are going to have one, it needs to be the same type across all
> > tables.
(Note here: it may not have been quite clear, but I'm not asking for
specific instances of wh
> > Ross, you make some powerful arguments here. Probably the most
> > significant was the idea that you need a unique identifier for every
> > row, and it should be of a consistent type, which primary key is not.
>
> I don't see why you need a unqiue identifier per row, nor do I see why,
> if yo
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ross, you make some powerful arguments here. Probably the most
> significant was the idea that you need a unique identifier for every
> row, and it should be of a consistent type, which primary key is not.
I don't see why you need a unqiue identifier p
Ross, you make some powerful arguments here. Probably the most
significant was the idea that you need a unique identifier for every
row, and it should be of a consistent type, which primary key is not.
We clearly need a GUC parameter to turn on/off oids. But it seems we
will always need the abi
On Fri, 23 Jan 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > 1. [OIDs are] not a relational concept.
> so are other system tuples (cid, tid, tableiod, ...).
But there's a key difference here; nobody's advertising these others as
any sort of row identifier: i.e., a candidate key. And besides, I wouldn't
object a
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> So in the longer term, we need to provide a replacement. Arguably, the
> primary key for a table is the right replacement, but we don't _require_
> a pkey, so what to do in cases where this isn't one?
You're stuck. SQL breaks with relational theory
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 i
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:03:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I object. I personally think we should be moving towards not using OIDs
> > as the default behaviour, inasmuch as we can, for several reasons:
>
> All these objections are global in nature, not
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I object. I personally think we should be moving towards not using OIDs
> as the default behaviour, inasmuch as we can, for several reasons:
All these objections are global in nature, not specific to CREATE TABLE
AS. The argument that persuaded me to do
On Thursday 23 January 2003 06:34, Curt Sampson wrote:
> 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
Why not make it a configuration option? I can actually think of a third
behaviour that would
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
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why don't you just include them by default, otherwise if WITHOUT OIDS
> > appears in the CREATE TABLE command, then don't include them ?
>
> Well, adding a WITHOUT OIDS option to CREATE TABLE AS would be a new
> feature, which I don't have
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why don't you just include them by default, otherwise if WITHOUT OIDS
> appears in the CREATE TABLE command, then don't include them ?
Well, adding a WITHOUT OIDS option to CREATE TABLE AS would be a new
feature, which I don't have the time/i
uary 2003 4:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [HACKERS] Call for objections: put back OIDs in CREATE TABLE
> AS/SELECT INTO
>
>
> 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 o
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. See discussion a couple
days ago on
17 matches
Mail list logo
