David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> I'm wondering if it would be possible to restore the relistemp column > >> to pg_class, at least for backwards compatibility, so that apps that > >> expected it can continue to work on both 9.0 and 9.1. Even if it's > >> read-only somehow, and the same as `relpersistence <> 't'`. > > > > Uh, that is going to require an initdb, and it is unlinkely we are going > > to need that this far into 9.1 beta. > > I was afraid of that. > > > Also, we don't normally keep > > system table columns around for backward compatibility because of the > > confusion it can cause, e.g. which column do I look at? > > The one that's documented.
Well, that assumes people read the documention and don't just do \d. Keeping cruft around over time makes the system more complex. > Wasn't newsysviews supposed to deal with these sorts of issues? Why > were they rejected? No idea. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
