| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there? |
| Date: | 2010-09-21 22:05:40 |
| Message-ID: | 10387.1285106740@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 9/20/10 10:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Backwards-compatibility? ;-) There hasn't been any pressing reason to
>> remove it.
> Any application which needed it (like OpenACS) just got broken when we
> removed add_missing_from. Let alone the typecasting changes in 8.3.
Huh? There's no reason to assume that those features are connected.
> Personally, I find removing GUCS to be a worthwhile goal in itself. We
> have well over 200 now.
Usually we don't remove GUCs (or other backwards-compatibility features)
until there's some positive reason to do so. I don't see one at the
moment for default_with_oids. Reducing the length of the GUC list by
0.5% doesn't seem like an adequate reason for possibly breaking old apps.
Mind you, it wouldn't take a *big* reason to persuade me to remove it.
But bigger than that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-21 22:10:22 | Re: repository size differences |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-09-21 22:04:42 | Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there? |