On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 08:06:44AM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> Sorry I didn't mention the reason why I think WITHOUT OIDS should be removed.
>
> WITHOUT OIDS has been a backward-compatible syntax for 6 years, so I
> think maybe not too many users use it nowadays. Besides, there are
> some hints i
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 12:49 AM Nathan Bossart
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 11:06:11PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> > WITH OIDS was removed in v12, I'm wondering if we could remove the
> > WITHOUT OIDS support for v19.
>
> AFAICT this would produce less helpful error messages and might even
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 11:11 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao writes:
> > WITH OIDS was removed in v12, I'm wondering if we could remove the
> > WITHOUT OIDS support for v19.
>
> Why?
Sorry I didn't mention the reason why I think WITHOUT OIDS should be removed.
WITHOUT OIDS has been a backw
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 11:06:11PM +0800, Junwang Zhao wrote:
> WITH OIDS was removed in v12, I'm wondering if we could remove the
> WITHOUT OIDS support for v19.
AFAICT this would produce less helpful error messages and might even break
applications, which I don't think is worth it to save ~90 li
Junwang Zhao writes:
> WITH OIDS was removed in v12, I'm wondering if we could remove the
> WITHOUT OIDS support for v19.
Why?
regards, tom lane
