On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 18:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
