Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
>> I'm also rather sceptical about this change.
> Hm. Thinking a bit about this patch, it presents the advantage to be
> able to track the same queries easily across systems even if those
> tables have been created with a different OID.
That argument would only hold if *every* use of OIDs in the jumbles
were replaced by names --- not only tables, but types, operators,
functions, etc. I'm already concerned that the additional name
lookups will cost a lot of performance, and I think adding so many
more would probably be disastrous.
> Also, isn't this patch actually broken if we rename relations and/or
> its namespace?
Well, it would mean that the query would no longer be considered "the
same". You could argue either way whether that's good or bad. But
yeah, this approach will break one set of use-cases to enable another
set.
On the whole, I think my vote is to reject this patch.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
