On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 13:41, Rod Taylor wrote:
ALTER TABLE .. SET WITHOUT OIDS;
I'd prefer this, as it's more similar to the CREATE TABLE syntax.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
---(end of broadcast)---
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the preferred syntax:
ALTER TABLE .. DROP COLUMN oid;
or
ALTER TABLE .. SET WITHOUT OIDS;
If we ever got around to supporting the inverse function (add oids),
I do not think we'd want to spell it like ADD COLUMN oid --- that
would interfere with
I guess I'd prefer the DROP COLUMN syntax. It means we don't have to add
another non-standard command, and people can figure out how to drop the oid
column just by trying...
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rod Taylor
Sent:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there really a reason why OIDs can't be a pure user-space column?
We'd need some kluge to keep SELECT * from including OID. Also I'd be
a bit worried about the impact on the cost of HeapTupleGetOid --- it
might not matter, or it might.
Tom Lane writes:
If we ever got around to supporting the inverse function (add oids),
I do not think we'd want to spell it like ADD COLUMN oid --- that
would interfere with making a plain user column named oid, which was
one of the reasons why people wanted to be able to drop OIDs in the
