Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?

On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 18:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

The uninformed still use OIDs. They shouldn't.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt