Tom Lane wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmm there seems to be an assumption that people could > > know whether they need OID or not for each table. > > A good point, and one reason not to make no-OIDs the default. I'm > envisioning that people will turn off OIDs only for tables that they > know will be very large and that they know they don't need OIDs for. >
AFAIK few people have voted *OIDs by default* in the first place. It seems to mean that *default* would naturally(essentially) be changed to *WITH NO OIDS*. The followings are the result of vote which I remember well. regards, Hiroshi Inoue "Mikheev, Vadim" wrote: > > > OK, we need to vote on whether Oid's are optional, > > and whether we can have them not created by default. > > Optional OIDs: YES > No OIDs by default: YES Lamar Owen wrote: > > [trimmed cc:list] > On Wednesday 18 July 2001 17:09, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, we need to vote on whether Oid's are optional, and whether we can > > have them not created by default. > > [All the below IMHO] > > OID's should be optional. > > System tables that absolutely have to have OIDs may keep them. > > No new OID usage, period. Use some other unique primary key. > > Default user tables to no OIDs. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
