Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:52:23 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids
Message-ID: <20181017155223.GC4184@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20180930034810.ywp2c7awz7opzcfr@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20181014220923.j4mlgue7y7chv533@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <943.1539556490@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20181014224339.i6pqo7kpgj7x5vq2@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmobCqGhnac0Brwkh-AUqhRMVba73fahLQPe+Z6nEJZoAwQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LAKYBX1SsoWHvs8q"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmobCqGhnac0Brwkh-AUqhRMVba73fahLQPe+Z6nEJZoAwQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--LAKYBX1SsoWHvs8q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 6:43 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I'm not sure we want that however - yes, the short time pain will be
> > lower, but do we really want to inflict the confusion about invisible
> > oids on our users for the next 20 years? I think there's a fair argument
> > to be made that we should cause pain once, rather continuing to inflict
> > lower doeses of pain.
>=20
> Yeah, I think that argument has quite a bit of merit.  I suspect that
> there are a lot of people who expect that 'SELECT * FROM pg_whatever'
> is going to show them all of the data in pg_whatever, and take a while
> to figure out that it really doesn't.  I know better and still mess
> this up with some regularity.  Anyone who finds it unintuitive that *
> doesn't really mean everything is going to be happier with this change
> in the long run.
>=20
> In the short run, it is indeed possible that some catalog queries will
> break.  But, really, how many?  For the most part, automated queries
> written by tools probably select specific columns rather than
> everything, and IIUC those won't break.  And even if they do use
> 'SELECT *', won't they just end up with two copies of the OID column?
> That might work fine.
>=20
> Of course it might not, and then you'd have to fix your code, but it's
> not obvious to me that this would be a horror show.

I tend to agree that this won't be as much of a horror show as made out
to be up-thread.  Tools should certainly be using explicit column names
and if they aren't then we're breaking them regularly anyway whenever
we change what columns exist in a given catalog table.

All the column renaming we did for v10 strikes me as a much bigger deal
than this change and while we did hear some complaints about that, I
certainly feel like it was worth it and that people generally
understood.

Thanks!

Stephen

--LAKYBX1SsoWHvs8q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=4yXo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LAKYBX1SsoWHvs8q--